Preamble

The House met at a Quarter before Three of the Clock, Mr. SPEAKER in the Chair.

Oral Answers to Questions — INDIA.

DISTURBANCES, KASHMIR.

Mr. RHYS DAVIES: 1.
asked the Secretary of State for India the present position in respect to the recent political disturbances in Kashmir?

The SECRETARY of STATE for INDIA (Sir Samuel Hoare): A series of outbreaks including looting and arson have occurred in the south-west of Kashmir. To assist the State authorities in the restoration of order the Government of India, at the request of the Darbar, have sent a battalion of British infantry with a squadron of cavalry to Mirpur, where they arrived on 30th January. One company of Indian troops has also been despatched, and various aeroplane reconnaissances have been carried out. The Government of India remain in close touch with the State authorities.

Mr. MAXTON: Can the right hon. Gentleman say whether the Cabinet was united on this matter?

Sir S. HOARE: Yes, Sir.

CENSUS.

Mr. DAVID GRENFELL: 2.
asked the Secretary of State for India, whether the figures for the Indian 1931 census have been completed; and if they are now available to Members?

Sir S. HOARE: A statement showing the figures so far received is being placed in the Library of the House. A summary of the complete report is expected to be available for Members towards the end of the year.

ARRESTS.

Mr. D. GRENFELL: 3.
asked the Secretary of State for India whether he can state how many persons have been arrested during the last three months under ordinances other than ordinary criminal procedure code; and whether he can state the capacity of the prisons in India and the number of persons how confined in them?

Mr. T. WILLIAMS: 5.
asked the Secretary of State for India if he will state how many persons in India have been arrested and how many are at present in detention under Regulation III of 1818 and the other regulations and special provisions enabling the Government of India to arrest and detain or imprison persons for indefinite periods without trial?

Mr. LEONARD: 14.
asked the Secretary of State for India if he can state how many Redshirts have been arrested on the North-West Frontier?

Mr. JOHN: 17.
asked the Secretary of State for India whether he can state how many of those arrested or detained under the recent ordinances have been charged; how many have been arrested under the Bengal ordinance; and is it intended to legislate on the lines of the ordinances?

Mr. CAPE: 31.
asked the Secretary of State for India if he will state the number of persons detained in prisons in India without trial?

Mr. WALLHEAD: 39.
asked the Secretary of State for India if he will state what is the total capacity of prisons in India; and is there sufficient accommodation in these prisons to provide for the increase in the number of prisoners as a result of rule by ordinance?

Sir S. HOARE: It is impossible for the Government of India, to furnish figures showing the total number of arrests, but they have undertaken to supply me with the total number of convictions both under the Ordinances and under the ordinary law, and I will give these figures to the House as soon as they are received. I am in possession of statistics showing the total number of persons arrested and detained without trial and I will circulate these in the OFFICIAL REPORT. As regards the second part of
the question, it would entail considerable labour to collect the desired information. The local Governments are making the necessary arrangements for the accommodation of extra prisoners and I have no reason to suppose that these will be inadequate. I should like to make it clear that it is the desire of the Government of India and of His Majesty's Government that these special powers taken to combat the Civil Disobedience Movement should be withdrawn as soon as circumstances justify their withdrawal.

Mr. MORGAN JONES: Why is it impossible to furnish the number of persons under arrest?

Sir S. HOARE: It would entail a great deal of labour at a time when the Government of India are faced with a difficult situation. I hesitate to ask them to undertake this work, and I should have thought that the House might rest satisfied with the information I am prepared to give of the number of convictions.

Mr. WILLIAMS: In view of the fact that many thousands of people have been apprehended without any charge made against them are we not entitled to know something of the actual circumstances which obtain in India?

Sir S. HOARE: I am adopting exactly the same procedure that was followed by

Number at present detained.


Regulation
III of 1818
…
…
…
30


Regulation
 II of 1819
…
…
…
197 (3 in jail).


Regulation
 XXV of 1827
…
…
…
2



Total



229


Of the total of 229, only 26 including 18 terrorists previously detained under the Bengal Criminal Law Amendment Act, have been detained since the 1st of November, 1931.

—
Number arrested by 31st January, 1932.
Number detained on 31st January, 1932.


Bengal Criminal Law Amendment Act and Ordinance.
1,017

264 in jail.




462 in detention camps.


Section 3 of Emergency Powers Ordinance and Section 3 of North-West Frontier Province Emergency Powers Ordinance.
Bombay
777
458



Bengal
248
191



United Provinces
10
10



Punjab
5
3



North-West Frontier Province
2,617
1,912

the Secretary of State for India in the Labour Government.

Mr. WILLIAMS: In view of the fact that the Bengal Ordinance and other Ordinances have been passed since then, how can the right hon. Gentleman suggest that he is pursuing the line taken by his predecessor?

Sir S. HOARE: I am speaking of the number of arrests.

Mr. GRENFELL: The right hon. Gentleman says that he is publishing the number of persons convicted and the number of persons detained without trial. Does not that contain all the information?

Sir S. HOARE: No, Sir. I can imagine that there may be a number of persons arrested who might not be convicted. I ask the hon. Member to wait until he sees the information I am prepared to give, which will, I think, satisfy the legitimate demands of every section in the House.

Mr. GRENFELL: There are only two classes; those who have been convicted—

HON. MEMBERS: Order!

Following is the statement:

BURMA.

Mr. D. GRENFELL: 4.
asked the Secretary of State for India whether he is aware that 16 rebels in the Prome district of Burma were decapitated by the Government forces and their heads taken to the military headquarters at Prome and publicly exhibited; and whether he can say by whose authority this was carried out?

Sir S. HOARE: The incident referred to by the hon. Member took place on 4th June, 1931. The information desired is contained in a resolution issued by the Government of Burma on the 8th July, 1931, a copy of which has been placed in the Library.

Mr. PARKINSON: 8.
asked the Secretary of State for India whether it is the intention of the Government of Burma to hold an early general election; and, if so, whether the general election is to be to the present legislative council and on the existing franchise?

Sir S. HOARE: The Prime Minister's statement of 12th January indicated that it is necessary to hold a general election for the existing legislative council before the end of this year. Such election would be held on the existing franchise. It is not possible at present to say precisely when this election will be held.

Mr. DAVID ADAMS: 12.
asked the Secretary of State for India if he will inform the House as to the present situation in regard to the disturbances in Burma?

Sir S. HOARE: I am circulating a report in respect of the past week. There are still a number of gangs of dacoits operating in several districts, and the authorities are now engaged in the task of rounding them up.

Following is the report:

Satisfactory progress continues. Two important leaders were accounted for in Prome district; one was shot by armed villagers and one surrendered. Two casualties among Government forces were reported, two irregular police being wounded. Ninety-three under-trial prisoners released and the number remaining in custody is now 426. The price of paddy has remained steady about 90. The collection of taxes continues to be satisfactory.

Mr. GORDON MACDONALD: 18.
asked the Secretary of State for India whether, pending the holding of the general election in Burma, any action is being taken by the Burma Government or by His Majesty's Government on the report of the recent Burma Round Table Conference?

Sir S. HOARE: The proceedings of the Burma Round Table Conference were on the assumption that Burma will be separated from India. Until that assumption has been endorsed by Burma it is not practicable and would not be proper for His Majesty's Government or the Government of Burma to take action to implement the Report of the Conference. But, on a provisional basis, active consideration is being given to the matters on which action will be required if the contemplated general election indicates that it is the wish of the people of Burma that separation should be effected.

Mr. DAGGAR: 53.
asked the Secretary of State for India whether he has considered the various allegations made in the letter addressed to the Secretary of State for India by U. Saw, member of the legislative council for Tharrawaddy South, Burma, in July, 1931; whether any reply has been sent to that letter; and whether it is proposed to institute a public inquiry into the causes of the risings and the various alleged breaches of the law in the suppression of the unrest in Burma?

Sir S. HOARE: I have seen a copy of the letter, to which no reply has been sent. As regards the last part of the question, until the rebellion is finally suppressed it is premature to consider what sort of an inquiry, if any, is desirable.

ORDINANCES.

Mr. T. WILLIAMS: 6.
asked the Secretary of State for India whether the recent ordinances promulgated in India are available as a White Paper or whether they can be made available to Members in this form?

Sir S. HOARE: A White Paper which will contain the text of the Ordinances is being prepared.

Mr. WILLIAMS: Can the right hon. Gentleman say when it will be available for Members?

Sir S. HOARE: In the course of the next few days.

Mr. JOHN: 16.
asked the Secretary of State for India if he will issue a White Paper giving the text of the five ordinances published this year; what is the total number of persons arrested to date; how many women and juveniles are included; on what charges are arrests made; and is it sufficient that a man was a member of congress before the rupture for him to be arrested, or is he not liable to be arrested until he has associated himself in some definite way with the organisation of civil disobedience?

Sir S. HOARE: As I have already promised the hon. Member for Don Valley (Mr. T. Williams) a White Paper will be issued. As regards the second, third, and fourth parts of the question I would refer the hon. Member to the reply to Question 3. As regards the. last part I would remind the hon. Member that the Indian National Congress as a whole has not been declared an unlawful association.

Mr. HICKS: 43.
asked the Secretary of State for India if he is aware that representations were made to the Viceroy by Indian moderates and representatives of Europeans in India to reconsider his decision about the refusal to discuss the ordinances with Mr. Gandhi; and what reply was given?

Sir S. HOARE: I understand that representations were made by certain Indian moderates, but I have no information as to the details of the correspondence.

Mr. HICKS: 44.
asked the Secretary of State for India whether, during the conversations with Mr. Gandhi, the idea of his discussing the Ordinances with the Viceroy was mentioned; and what was the attitude of the right hon. Gentleman to this suggestion?

Mr. MORGAN JONES: 54.
asked the Secretary of State for India whether in his conversations with Mr. Gandhi the Bengal Ordinances were discussed; and what was the attitude expressed by the right hon. Gentleman to the idea of Mr. Gandhi visiting Bengal to see for himself the working of the Ordinances?

Sir S. HOARE: My conversations with Mr. Gandhi on the subject of
Ordinances related only to the Bengal Ordinances which are directed against terrorism and not to the Ordinances directed against Congress action which were promulgated after his departure. I do not remember that Mr. Gandhi expressed the intention or desire to visit Bengal to see their working and I certainly gave him no undertaking in the matter, nor did I enter into any commitment on behalf of the Viceroy as to discussions in India. I made it quite clear to Mr. Gandhi that there could be no question of withdrawing the Bengal Ordinances so long as the terrorist movement was in being.

Mr. JONES: Was the distinction between the two sorts of Ordinances abundantly clear to Mr. Gandhi in the conversations?

Sir S. HOARE: Yes, because the only Ordinance we were discussing was the Ordinance against terrorism. The others were promulgated subsequent to his departure.

Mr. WILLIAMS: As there had been no terrorism, or practically no terrorism, while Mr. Gandhi was in England, is it not the case that a request was made to the right hon. Gentleman to grant facilities for any incidents to be discussed at the moment of his arrival, and did the right hon. Gentleman not undertake to send along some message so that the facilities could be provided?

Sir S. HOARE: The hon. Member is misinformed on both points. I do not think he can have been following what has been happening in Bengal. As to my own position, I made it quite clear in the answer I gave that I gave no pledge of any kind, and I do not remember that Mr. Gandhi suggested to me that he wished to visit Bengal.

Mr. MORGAN JONES: 55.
asked the Secretary of State for India. whether he was consulted before the Viceroy made his decision about declining to discuss the Ordinances with Mr. Gandhi; and whether before ordering Mr. Gandhi's arrest any communication to His Majesty's Government was made by the Government of India?

Sir S. HOARE: The reply to both parts of the question is in the affirmative.

INDIANS, SOUTH AFRICA.

Mr. PARKINSON: 7.
asked the Secretary of State for India the progress that has been made in the conference between the Union Government and the representatives of India on the question of the future position of Indians in the Union of South Africa?

Sir S. HOARE: I regret that I am not in a position to make a statement regarding the progress of the conference at the moment.

ARMS TRAFFIC, BENGAL.

Lieut.-Colonel Sir WALTER SMILES: 9.
asked the Secretary of State for India if he will secure the co-operation of the Royal Navy to prevent the smuggling of firearms into Bengal?

Sir S. HOARE: The prevention of the smuggling of arms into Bengal by sea is a problem which has for many years engaged the earnest attention of the Government of India. The measures adopted involve the closest co-operation between the police and Customs authorities. I do not think that this is a matter in which the Royal Navy could usefully co-operate.

POLICE, UNITED PROVINCES.

Sir W. SMILES: 10.
asked the Secretary of State for India what reduction has been made in the police force of the United Provinces during the past six months?

Sir S. HOARE: I have no information regarding alterations in the strength of the police force in the United Provinces during the period in question but I will obtain it.

MEERUT CONSPIRACY TRIAL.

Mr. McENTEE: 11.
asked the Secretary of State for India whether the trial of the Meerut prisoners is approaching completion; if he will state when the prisoners were first arrested; and the reasons for the delay in reaching a verdict?

Sir S. HOARE: The prisoners were first arrested on the 20th March, 1929. Judgment is expected to be given in the course of this summer. The delay in reaching a verdict is due both to the great mass of evidence, oral and documentary, and also, latterly, to the protracted nature of the defence which is not yet completed.

Mr. McENTEE: In view of the fact that these men have been in gaol for over three years, does not the right hon. Gentleman think that they should now be released?

Sir S. HOARE: I have answered that question several times. The answer is in the negative. I desire to see the trial finished with the least possible delay.

Mr. McENTEE: If the verdict is in favour of the prisoners, will the right hon. Gentleman consider giving them compensation?

ROUND TABLE CONFERENCE.

Captain ERSKINE-BOLST: 13.
asked the Secretary of State for India the complete cost to the taxpayer and to the Indian Government, respectively, of the Round Table Conference?

Sir S. HOARE: I cannot yet give complete figures, but the cost of the two sessions of the Indian Round Table Conference will probably be about £58,000, so far as the liability of the British taxpayer is concerned. The cost of the first session of the conference chargeable to Indian revenues was £47,228. I cannot yet give the actual cost to India of the second session, but it has been estimated at approximately £59,000.

Brigadier-General CLIFTON BROWN: 15.
asked the Secretary of State for India whether any special steps are being taken to ensure publicity all over India of the labours of the three committees which are inquiring into matters arising out of the Round Table Conference; and whether summaries of their proceedings will be not only issued to the Press but distributed to civil servants and others in all districts in India?

Sir S. HOARE: I can assure my hon. and gallant Friend that the Government of India and I are fully alive to the desirability of securing widespread knowledge of the proceedings of the committees now at work in India, and that steps have been taken which I hope will keep the Press fully informed. But for such publicity we must rely on the Press. I fear the suggestion at the end of the question would be impracticable.

Brigadier-General BROWN: In view of the criticism that some of the delegates when they got back to India did not know what really occurred, will the right
hon. Gentleman urge the Government of India to give all the publicity that is necessary?

Sir S. HOARE: I think we have made arrangements which will ensure the publicity which the hon. arid gallant Member desires.

Mr. T. WILLIAMS: Seeing that so many newspapers are being suppressed, how is it possible for this information to be given?

Sir S. HOARE: The only newspapers suppressed are those which are actively hostile.

MILITARY AND POLICE ACTION (CASUALTIES).

Mr. G. MACDONALD: 19.
asked the Secretary of State for India whether he will give information as to the occasions during the last six months on which, in dealing with manifestations of civil disobedience in India, the authorities have had recourse to firing; and if he will state the number killed or seriously injured on these occasions?

Mr. WALLHEAD: 33.
asked the Secretary of State for India how many deaths or fatal injuries have resulted in India recently from lathi blows, or rifle fire, or other action taken by the police; and whether any persons have died on the spot as a result of lathi blows?

Sir S.HOARE: I am circulating a statement of the cases reported to me up to the end of January in which Government forces were obliged to fire and of those in which there was loss of life.

Following statement:

Date, Place and Remarks.

26th December, 1931.—Takhal Payan, Peshawar District.—While making arrests the police, who were accompanied by detachments of the Frontier Constabulary and Army Troops, were stoned and charged by the crowd. To disperse the crowed 12 rounds were fired by the Frontier constabulary. One boy was slightly wounded.

26th December, 1931.—Kohat.—Four large parties of Red-shirts attempted to enter Kohat Cantonment. The first two were dispersed by police supported by troops without any firing. The second two
parties combined together and to disperse them the troops were compelled to fire. Casualties are believed to have been seven killed and 38 injured.

1st January, 1932.—Allahabad.—Police fired three rounds of buckshot at long range to disperse a crowd threatening them while searching a Congress office. No casualties.

4th January, 1932.—Allahabad.—In the dispersion of an unlawful procession by police armed with polo sticks two men were crushed to death and a few others received minor injuries.

5th January, 1932.—Benares.—The police while endeavouring to disperse a crowd of 20,000 accompanying a procession which attempted to enter the Town Hall grounds were attacked with brickbats. After several men were hit and the District Magistrate was himself twice struck while parleying with the crowd firing was ordered. Fourteen rounds of buckshot were fired. Two persons were killed and a third died of wounds subsequently. There were also about 50 gunshot casualties of a mild nature.

16th January, 1932.—Gujrat, Peshawar District.—An escort of about 20 police in charge of six prisoners was attacked by a mob of villagers estimated at 500. The Thanadar was dragged from his horse and the police were forced to fire about 20 rounds. Casualties: one villager killed and one wounded.

Berhampore, Bengal.—Police were compelled to open fire on a mob. Casualties: one killed and two wounded.

Coimbatore District, Madras.—One man was killed during a lathi charge.

23rd-24th January, 1932.—Charsadda, North-West Frontier Province.—Special police surprised a secret congress meeting. Shots were exchanged and the meeting dispersed.

24th January, 1932.—Latakhola, Bengal.—Police compelled to open fire while dispersing a meeting of volunteers. No casualties.

26th January, 1932.—Bombay.—Hooligans lighted bonfires in the street at night, burnt one police chowki and stoned a. police station. Two rounds were fired by police. No casualties.

26th January, 1932.—Simaria, United Provinces.—Police prevented a congress procession from entering a cattle fair, arresting the leaders. Later a crowd estimated at 4,000 attempted to rescue the prisoners, threatening to kill the police and attacking the police camp with lathis, bricks and other missiles. Police fired 32 gun and four revolver shots. Casualties: three killed and 11 injured.

27th January, 1932.—Motihari, Bihar and Orissa.—Lathi charges having proved ineffective the police were compelled to fire on a hostile crowd attempting to occupy a Pandal and stoning them. Casualties: two riders killed and several wounded, two police seriously and many slightly injured.

29th January, 1932.—Bombay.—Following the dispersal of Frontier Day processions the police were repeatedly stoned by mobs parading the streets and attempting arson. Twelve rounds were fired, resulting in one rioter killed and 19 injured.

29th January, 1932.—Barbigha, Bihar and Orissa.—Attack on police resulted in the death of one police dafadar.

31st January, 1932.—Bombay.—Crowds attempted to light bonfires in the streets and stoned police and fire brigade officers. Four rounds were fired by police officers in self-defence.

IMPERIAL ECONOMIC CONFERENCE.

Captain PETER MACDONALD: 20.
asked the Secretary of State for India whether he can give an assurance that the Government of India will be represented at the forthcoming Imperial Economic Conference in Ottawa?

Sir S. HOARE: Yes, Sir.

Captain MACDONALD: Can the right hon. Gentleman say who the representative will be?

Sir S. HOARE: Not yet.

ARMY (INDIANISATION).

Mr. JOHN: 21.
asked the Secretary of State for India what progress has been made concerning the preparations in India for the establishment of a military training college for Indian commissioned officers?

Sir S. HOARE: It is intended to open the college in the coming autumn and to
hold the first entrance examination in July.

Mr. TINKER: 22.
asked the Secretary of State for India how many Indian gentlemen hold commissions in the Royal Artillery, Royal Engineers, and other branches of the military forces other than the cavalry and infantry; how many Indian cadets are under training at Woolwich; and how many passed out. in January, 1932?

Sir S. HOARE: The training of Indian cadets at the Royal Military Academy, Woolwich, is with a view to their being commissioned in the Indian Artillery, the Sappers and Miners of the Indian Army, and the Indian Signal Corps. Seven cadets are at present at Woolwich. Two recently passed out of the Academy and were duly commissioned on 28th January last.

INDIAN AIR FORCE (CADETS).

Mr. TINKER: 23.
asked the Secretary of State for India how many Indian cadets are now under training at Cranwell with a view to qualifying for commissions in the Indian Air Force; and when it is expected that the force will be constituted?

Sir S. HOARE: The answer to the first part of the question is nine. There is a tenth cadet at the Royal Air Force school of Store Accounting and Store Keeping at Kidbrooke. It is hoped that the first unit of the Force will be inaugurated in March, 1933.

ECCLESIASTICAL ESTABLISHMENT.

Mr. TINKER: 24.
asked the Secretary of State for India whether he will give figures showing the annual cost to Indian revenues during the last five years of the maintenance of the ecclesiastical department of the Government of India; and if he will state the particular functions for which this department of the Government of India is maintained?

Sir S. HOARE: The Indian Ecclesiastical Establishment is maintained primarily in order to provide religious ministrations to British troops and their families in India. The annual cost of the Establishment during the last five years has been roughly £300,000. This figure includes expenditure on the upkeep of churches.

FRANCHISE COMMITTEE.

Mr. G. MACDONALD: 28.
asked the Secretary of State for India whether the terms of reference of the Indian Franchise Committee remain as set out in the Prime Minister's letter to Lord Lothian on the appointment of the committee?

Sir S. HOARE: Yes, Sir.

Mr. HICKS (for Colonel WEDGWOOD): 42.
asked the Secretary of State for India whether any charge falls upon the British Exchequer in connection with the Lord Lothian Commission in India?

Sir S. HOARE: Yes, Sir; the British Exchequer is meeting the cost of the passages to and from India, and of the compensatory allowances, of the members appointed from this country of Lord Lothian's Franchise Committee and of the other two committees which went to India at the same time.

AHMEDABAD LABOUR ASSOCIATION (SECRIITARY).

Mr. RHYS DAVIES: 29.
asked the Secretary of State for India on what grounds the secretary of the Ahmedabad Labour Association has been ordered to report to the police?

Sir S. HOARE: I have no information regarding this case.

Mr. T. WILLIAMS: Will the right hon. Gentleman obtain information at the earliest possible moment so that we may know why this representative of Labour has been apprehended?

Mr. WARDLAW-MILNE: Will any right hon. Friend not consider whether it is not very inadvisable to ask the Government of India to provide details of this kind in connection with different bodies all over the country

Mr. LANSBURY: This is not a question of detail; it is simply a question of fact. Has the man been arrested?

Sir S. HOARE: As I said earlier, I am disinclined at this time to ask the Government of India to undertake great work in furnishing details of replies to questions. If there is a strong desire in any section of the House for a particular piece of information, I will try to satisfy that desire, but I do hesitate to give an
undertaking that I will ask the Government of India for quantities of details which may not be essential.

ILLEGAL ORGANISATIONS.

Mr. RHYS DAVIES: 30.
asked the Secretary of State for India how many organisations in India that have been declared illegal are, respectively, Christian, Moslem, social, educational, or labour?

Mr. LAWSON: 36.
asked the Secretary of State for India how many organisations have been declared illegal in India; and under what laws or ordinances are they so declared?

Sir S. HOARE: I have no information as to the total number of associations declared unlawful or as to their classification. Action is taken either under the Criminal Law Amendment Act of 1908 or under the Unlawful Associations Ordinance.

Mr. DAVIES: Will the right hon. Gentleman not tell the House whether there is any attempt being made to destroy trade union organisations in India?

Sir S. HOARE: There is no truth whatever in any such allegation.

PRESS ORDINANCES.

Mr. T. GRIFFITHS: 26.
asked the Secretary of State for India if he will give particulars in regard to the daily and weekly newspapers against which action has been taken under the Indian Press Ordinance or under the ordinances introduced by the Government of India to deal with the civil disobedience movement?

Mr. WALLHEAD: 32.
asked the Secretary of State for India if he will state how many editors of newspapers have been arrested, sentenced, or fined, respectively; and how many of these were placed on trial?

Mr. McENTEE (for Mr. DUNCAN GRAHAM): 38.
asked the Secretary of State for India whether he can state the number of newspapers that have been suppressed in India since the end of the Round Table Conference; how many are English; and how many vernacular?

Sir S, HOARE: I am asking the Government of India to supply me with a statement showing the action taken under the Indian Press (Emergency Powers) Act, 1931, and those sections of the Ordinances which relate to the Press.

Mr. NEIL MACLEAN: 40.
asked the Secretary of State for India whether there has been any prosecution of editors or newspapers prior to publication of any news or views distasteful to the Government or only after such had appeared, as is the case in Great Britain?

Sir S. HOARE: There is no pre-censorship of publications in India, and prosecution could only be instituted after publication.

BOYCOTT (BRITISH GOODS).

Mr. LAWSON: 37.
asked the Secretary of State for India if he has any evidence showing the effect of the boycott, movement on the sale of British goods in India; and to what extent popular support is behind the boycott movement?

Sir S. HOARE: There has not been time since the renewal of the Civil Disobedience movement for the effect of the boycott to show itself in the trade figures. In any case trade movements are now complicated by so many varying influences that it would hardly be possible to isolate the effect of any one of them such as the boycott. The answer to the second part of the question must, I think, be a matter of opinion, but it is certain that the attitude towards the boycott varies in different parts of the country.

Sir REGINALD CRADDOCK: 49.
asked the Secretary of State for India what steps have now been taken to enforce the prohibition of the picketing of shops selling British goods in the Bombay presidency and Bombay city; and whether such picketing has now stopped?

Sir S. HOARE: An Ordinance amending the Prevention of Molestation and Boycotting Ordinance with a view to removing difficulties experienced in its administration has been promulgated. The text of the amended Ordinance will be given in the White Paper. It is too early yet to answer the last part of the question.

MR. GANDHI.

Mr. HICKS: 41.
asked the Secretary of State for India whether he will publish the exact terms of Mr. Gandhi's request to the Viceroy?

Sir S. HOARE: Yes, Sir. The correspondence between the Viceroy and Mr. Gandhi will be included in the White Paper.

Mr. MORGAN JONES: 56.
asked the Secretary of State for India whether he will make a statement as to the arrangements made with Mr. Gandhi, or the request made by him, that the gist of the conversations between himself and the right hon. gentleman should be sent to India so as to reach Mr. Gandhi on his arrival there; whether such a letter was sent and, if so, when; and what was the nature of its contents?

Sir S. HOARE: Mr. Gandhi wrote to me from Switzerland recording his impression of our conversation as to the scope of future constitutional discussions following upon the Round Table Conference. He asked for a reply by air mail to be addressed to Ahmedabad. I complied with his request and have received from him a letter of acknowledgment and thanks. The contents of the correspondence have been published.

Mr. JONES: Is it a fact that the communication which went by air mail did not arrive in India until at least a fortnight after Mr. Gandhi's arrival; and, if that is the case, can the right hon. Gentleman explain the reason of the delay?

Sir S. HOARE: I should not have thought that it was the case. As far as I know, the letter went in the ordinary course and was delivered in the ordinary course. The letter should have been in India about the time that Mr. Gandhi returned there. For my part, there was no unnecessary delay.

Mr. T. WILLIAMS (for Dr. WILLIAMS): 34.
asked the Secretary of State for India what overt act or acts on the part of Mr. Gandhi caused the Government of India to order his arrest and detention?

Sir S. HOARE: I would refer the hon. Member to the statement issued by the
Government of India. on the 4th January, which has appeared in the Press, and will be included in the White Paper.

BRITISH TROOPS.

Brigadier-General BROWN: 50.
asked the Secretary of State for India whether any British or Indian troops have been transferred from India to reinforce garrisons in China; and whether, in view of the contingencies that may arise in India, the British forces in India are being maintained at their present strength?

Sir S. HOARE: No troops have been sent from India to China. A minor alteration in the normal relief programme may be made by which a British battalion will move from India to China a few weeks earlier than it would have sailed from India in the ordinary course.

RENT AND REVENUE COLLECTION, UNITED PROVINCES.

Mr. DAGGAR: 51.
asked the Secretary of State for India how much of the land revenue due in the United Provinces has been realised since the promulgation of the ordinance to put down the no-rent campaign in that province?

Sir S. HOARE: I have no precise figures but my latest information is to the effect that there has been a great improvement in the collection of rent and revenue and that the position in this respect may be regarded as quite satisfactory except in two districts.

CHITTAGONG (ARMOURY RAID).

Mr. DAGGAR: 52.
asked the Secretary of State for India if he will give particulars as to the progress that has been made, with the assistance of the special ordinances in Bengal giving the powers considered necessary for that purpose, in tracing and dealing with the absconders wanted in connection with the armoury raid at Chittagong?

Sir S. HOARE: I regret that I cannot make any statement at present. The authorities in Chittagong are engaged in a very difficult task and progress is, I am afraid, bound to be slow.

LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY.

Mr. T. WILLIAMS (for Dr. WILLIAMS): 35.
asked the Secretary of State for India whether the Government
of India, took any steps to call an urgent session of the Legislative Assembly when the situation in India, in their opinion, demanded the widespread use of force and extraordinary powers?

Sir S. HOARE: No, Sir. An emergency had arisen which the Governor-General considered necessitated the immediate exercise of the powers conferred on him by the Government of India Act for that purpose.

Oral Answers to Questions — TRADE AND COMMERCE.

RUSSIA.

Mr. HALL-CAINE: 59.
asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs if he will consider making arrangements with the Soviet Government, similar to those already existing between that Government and the French and Italian Governments, under which the Soviet Government agrees to purchase certain minimum quantities of the goods of those countries against their purchases?

Mr. SMITHERS: 94.
asked the President of the Board of Trade whether, in view of the present figures with regard to export credits to Russia, he will refuse to trade further except on a system of barter for goods against goods?

Major COLVILLE (Secretary, Overseas Trade Department): I have been asked to answer these questions. My hon. Friend the Member for Eastern Dorset (Mr. Hall-Caine) is, I think, under a misapprehension. According to our information no reciprocal trading agreement has been reached between the French and the Soviet Governments. The Italo-Soviet Agreement of 27th April, 1931, merely stipulates the limit of Government credits available for Soviet purchases in Italy. The question of trade with Russia is receiving careful and special consideration and an announcement will be made in due course.

Major-General Sir ALFRED KNOX: 73.
asked the Secretary to the Overseas Trade Department what is at present the total liability of the Government on account of credits given to the Soviet Government; and what amount of this liability will remain on the 1st January, 1933, 1934, and 1935, respectively?

Major COLVILLE: The total amount of credits which the Export Credits Guarantee Department had contracted to guarantee from 1st August, 1929, to 30th January last in respect of exports to Russia was approximately £14,000,000. The maximum liability assumed under these contracts was £10,000,000 and bills for £5,200,000 have run off without any call being made on the Department's guarantee. As I said in reply to my hon. Friend the Member for Chislehurst (Mr. Smithers) on 16th November, I hope that the House will excuse me, as they have excused my predecessors, from giving precise figures of the Department's liability on particular countries at any moment, a practice which has the support of the Department's Advisory Committee. I may, however, say as regards the last part of the question that practically all the current liability is due to run off by the mdidle of 1934.

Sir ASSHETON POWNALL: 77.
asked the Secretary to the Overseas Trade Department whether he has any information as to what, if any, foreign Governments give export credit facilities in connection with Russian trade?

Major COLVILLE: The Governments of the following countries are known to offer export credit facilities in connec-

Description.
Unit of Quantity.
Quantity.
Declared Value.






£


Barley
…
Cwt.
5,638,468
1,180,621


Oats
…
Cwt.
2,783,640
629,185


Maize
…
Cwt.
659,910
133,982


Raw Cotton (excluding linters)
…
Cental of 100 lbs.
885,587
2,058,483


Plywood
…
Sq. ft.
96,106,267
262,186


Linen piece goods
…
Sq. yd.
488,991
14,973


Soap
…
Cwt.
28,920
39,702


The above figures are provisional.


Particulars of the imports of barley and oats consigned from the Soviet Union will be distinguished in the "Accounts relating to Trade and Navigation of the United Kingdom", commencing with the issue for January, 1932. No further amendments can be made for this year, but in respect of maize and cotton, for which imports from principal countries are shown in the "Accounts", the question of distinguishing separately the imports from the Soviet Union will be considered in connection with the revision of the "Accounts" for next year.

BREWING AND MALTING TRADES.

Major the Marquess of TITCHFIELD: 45.
asked the Prime Minister whether, in the near future, he will give

tion with Russian trade: Austria, Germany, Italy, Czechoslovakia, Norway, Poland, Finland, Latvia and Japan.

Sir A. POWNALL: Has my hon. and gallant Friend any information as to whether facilities are given in regard to Russian trade?

Major COLVILLE: Yes. My answer was in regard to Russian trade.

Duchess of ATHOLL: 96 and 97.
asked the President of the Board of Trade (1) the quantity and value of the barley, oats, maize, cotton, plywood, linen piece-goods, and soap imported from the Soviet Union in 1931, to the latest date for which figures are available; and
(2) whether, in view of the recent large importations of barley, oats, maize, cotton, plywood, linen piece-goods, and soap from the Soviet Union, he will cause Russian imports of these commodities to be detailed separately from those of other countries in the monthly Trade and Navigation Returns?

The PARLIAMENTARY SECRETARY to the BOARD of TRADE (Mr. HoreBelisha): As the answer involves a number of figures, I will, with the Noble Lady's permission, circulate it in the OFFICIAL REPORT.

Following is the answer:

Parliamentary time to debate the position in the brewing and the malting trades?

The LORD PRESIDENT of the COUNCIL (Mr. Baldwin): I am afraid that I cannot find special time for the discussion proposed, in view of the already heavy programme of business before the House.

Marquess of TITCHFIELD: Will the right hon. Gentleman bear constantly in mind the very serious position in these two trades?

Mr. BALDWIN: They are not the only industries. I regret it very much.

Brigadier-General Sir HENRY CROFT: Is my right hon. Friend aware of the very real distress among the whole of the barley growers?

EXCHANGE RESTRICTIONS.

Captain WATT: 74.
asked the Secretary to the Overseas Trade Department whether there has been any improvement in regard to the difficulties in securing payment arising from exchange restrictions imposed by various countries; and whether, in the case of those countries where the difficulties remain, it is proposed to institute clearing office arrangements on the lines of those already in force between certain foreign countries?

Major COLVILLE: In Finland, Argentina and Spain, among countries where the delay in securing sterling exchange to discharge current obligations to United Kingdom traders has been serious, an improvement has been experienced; indeed, in the first case the difficulties have been largely overcome. I regret, however, to say that in a number of other countries the delays are still serious.
The difficulties experienced by traders in such countries, both in respect of past contracts and current business, are fully appreciated, and the position has been carefully watched by His Majesty's Government so as to ensure that British exporters are treated on an equal footing with the exporters of other countries in the allocation of available exchange. The closest examination has also been given to the question of instituting "clearing office" arrangements.
This examination has shown that such arrangements would involve legislation in this country to enforce payment to the clearing office of sums due by importers to traders in the countries concerned, leading to extensive State interference
with trading activities which would tend to diminish the existing volume of British trade with these countries. Moreover, the conclusion of a number of bilateral agreements, and the consequent creation of a series of watertight compartments, must tend to decrease further the payments received by this country in respect of "invisible exports" and so to accentuate the difficulty in our achieving a favourable balance of payments. The working of the bilateral clearing office arrangements which halve recently been instituted between certain countries is reported in many cases to be unsatisfactory.
Having regard to such considerations, His Majesty's Government, as at present advised, feel that as a general principle the adoption by the Government of a "clearing house" system would not on the whole be in the national interest or of benefit to the trading community. I understand that the International Chamber of Commerce Committee on Foreign Exchange Regulations has reached a similar conclusion.
I shall continue to watch the position closely in order that, should it appear that further action can usefully be initiated, steps may be taken accordingly.

FINLAND.

Captain ERSKINE-BOLST: 75.
asked the Secretary to the Overseas Trade Department what proportion of British exports to Finland during 1931 were financed under the export credit system; and whether, in view of the fact that German industry, by granting easier paying conditions to Finnish buyers, has obtained a larger proportion of the trade in that country than Great Britain, he will take steps to increase the use taken of the credit facilities available in connection with British trade with Finland?

Major COLVILLE: The contracts concluded under the Export Credits Guarantee Scheme during 1931 in connection with exports to Finland amounted to £18,820, or approximately 1.2 per cent. of the total United Kingdom exports to that country. As regards the second part of the question, the reports received in my Department do not suggest that the main reason for the larger proportion of Finnish trade enjoyed by Germany is that the terms of payment granted by German exporters to Finnish buyers are easier
than those allowed by British exporters. My Department is constantly studying methods for increasing British trade with Finland, and I shall be delighted to give consideration to any proposals that my hon. and gallant Friend may make with that end in view.

FALSE TRADE DESCRIPTIONS (TOMATO PULP).

Captain WATT: 99.
asked the President of the Board of Trade if he is aware that foreign tomato pulp is being sold in the form of various tinned and bottled products under labels which suggest that they are of British origin; and whether he is prepared to take action to stop inferential or actual misdescription?

Mr. HORE-BELISHA: The Merchandise Marks Act, 1887, contains provisions dealing with the application to goods of false trade descriptions. If my hon. and gallant, Friend will furnish me with particulars of the cases in question, I shall be glad to have the matter investigated.

Oral Answers to Questions — JUDGES (SALARIES).

Mr. HALL-CAINE: 46.
asked the Prime Minister whether, in view of the improved state of the country, he proposes to restore the salaries of His Majesty's Judges?

Mr. T. WILLIAMS: 48.
asked the Prime Minister whether it is proposed to abolish the recent reduction in the salaries of Judges; whether the reductions which have been imposed are to be made good; and on what date the original salaries will be restored?

Mr. BALDWIN: I hope to be in a position to make a statement on this matter in the course of a few days.

Oral Answers to Questions — GOVERNMENT DEPARTMENTS.

Mr. TOUCHE: 47.
asked the Prime Minister whether, in view of the increase in the number of Government Departments since 1913, it is proposed to abolish some of those created since that date?

Mr. BALDWIN: My hon. Friend may rest assured that there is no intention of keeping in being any Department whose functions have ceased.

Oral Answers to Questions — MEXICO (BONDHOLDERS).

Sir NICHOLAS GRATTAN-DOYLE: 57.
asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs if he will ascertain from the Mexican Government the amount of money which the Mexican Government has paid during the past 10 years to the International Committee of Mexican Bondholders; and whether any of that sum has been retained by or for that committee for expenses?

The UNDER-SECRETARY of STATE for FOREIGN AFFAIRS (Mr. Eden): I am informed that the total sums received from the Mexican Government by the international Committee of Mexican Bondholders amount with accrued interest to approximately $45,000,000. Of this sum approximately $5,000,000 have been retained for expenses, including the charges of depositaries, paying agents, etc., in the various countries. No remuneration has been paid to any member of the Committee for his services.

Mr. REMER: 58 and 60.
asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs (1) whether he is aware that the Mexican Bondholders' International Committee of 11 American bankers has, after many attempts during 18 years, failed to obtain resumption by the Mexican Government of its obligations to British holders of its defaulted bonds; and will he now intervene by requesting British bondholders to communicate with him so that His Majesty's commercial representative in Mexico may take steps on their behalf with the Mexican Government irrespective of American interests;
(2) if he will ascertain what decisions have now been arrived at by the international committee with regard to British holders of the defaulted obligations of the Mexican Government receiving payment; and how soon such payment is to begin?

Mr. EDEN: A new agreement between the Mexican Government and the International Committee of Bankers was concluded on the 22nd of December last, and has been approved by both Houses of the Mexican Congress. This is substantially on the same terms as the agreement of July, 1930, but the resumption of payments is deferred until the 1st of January, 1934. As this new- agreement covers the interests of the British bondholders, and
was not signed until after the Committee representing the latter in London had been consulted and had signified their approval, the second part of the question does not therefore arise.

Sir ARTHUR MICHAEL SAMUEL: Does the hon. Gentleman realise that agreements of this kind have been broken and varied now for a period of 18 years and that not one single farthing has reached British subjects as a result?

Oral Answers to Questions — CHINA AND JAPAN.

MANCHURIA.

Mr. COCKS: 61 and 62.
asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs, (1) whether his attention has been called to the note of the Chinese Government to the League of Nations, stating that on 16th December last General Honjo, Japanese Commander-in-Chief in Manchuria, published a proclamation to the effect that the Manchurian provinces of 14Iukden and Kirin were henceforth independent and were breaking of all relations with the Chinese Government: and whether any representations have been made on the subject to the Japanese Government;
(2) whether he can give any information regarding the Japanese proposal to form, during the Japanese military occupation of Manchuria, a new independent state of Manchuria and Mongolia?

Mr. EDEN: I have no information beyond the Chinese note mentioned by the hon. Member, which I have seen, to confirm the idea that there is a Japanese proposal to form an independent State in Manchuria and Mongolia. The Chinese note itself referred to a statement, not to a proclamation. His Majesty's Government have made no representations on the subject to the Japanese Government.

Mr. COCKS: 63.
asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether the policy of His Majesty's Government still remains as stated by the Secretary of State on 13th and 30th July, 1928, when he said that His Majesty's Government regarded Manchuria as being a part of China, and as set forth in Article I of the Nine-Power Treaty of 1922 by which
Great Britain, in common with the other signatories, engaged to respect the sovereignty, the independence and the territorial and administrative integrity of China?

Mr. EDEN: Yes, Sir.

Mr. COCKS: In view of that answer, would it not be desirable to call the attention of the Japanese Government to the matter referred to in the other questions, namely, the statement as to the creation of a separate State in Manchuria?

Mr. EDEN: The Japanese Government have given very definite assurances both to His Majesty's Government and to the League, that they intend to maintain their responsibilities under the Nine-Power Treaty and also to maintain the open door in Manchuria.

TREATIES.

Captain P. MACDONALD: 65.
asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs if he will state what countries have treaties other than trade treaties between themselves and China and Japan, respectively; and the principal provisions of each such treaty?

Mr. EDEN: I regret that I cannot undertake to compile the information desired by my hon. and gallant Friend, but. I am circulating in the OFFICIAL REPORT a list of the authorities which may be consulted and which are available either in the Library of this House or at the Foreign Office.

The following is the list:

As regards China:

Hertslet's China Treaties (1689–1907),

MacMurray's China Treaties (1894–1919),

J. B. Scott's China Treaties (1919–1929),

League of Nations Treaty Series.

Also, Treaty Series No. 34 (1925) contains a list of treaties, etc., between Great Britain and China (1842–1922), including international treaties, and treaties between Great Britain and foreign Powers relating to China. The list also mentions the publications in which the texts of these treaties will be found. Recent treaties concluded by Great Britain with China are contained in Treaty Series Nos. 3, 4, 20, 44 and 50 of 1930 and No. 18 of 1931.

As regards Japan:

League of Nations Treaty Series, A collection of treaties published by the Japanese Foreign Office.

The Treaty Series of 1925, 1930 and 1931, the League of Nations Treaty Series and Hertslet's China Treaties are in the Library of the House of Commons, and any of the other publications referred to could be consulted at the Foreign Office.

BRITISH SUBJECTS (KAILAN MINES AREA).

Sir A. M. SAMUEL: 66.
asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs what steps have been taken during the present Chinese troubles to protect British subjects in the Kailan mines area?

Mr. EDEN: His Majesty's Ship "Folkestone" is now at Chinwangtao, and it is proposed to keep her there for the present. The situation is being closely watched, and a Consular officer has been sent to Tongshan where the mines are situated.

NEGOTIATIONS.

Mr. LANSBURY: (by Private Notice) asked the Lord President of the Council whether he has any further statement to make on the negotiations regarding the Sino-Japanese dispute?

Mr. BALDWIN: Negotiations regarding the possibility of establishing a cessation of hostilities at Shanghai are at present in progress. For the moment I should prefer to say nothing further.

Oral Answers to Questions — DISARMAMENT CONFERENCE.

Mr. BROCKLEBANK: 64.
asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs what is the expected number of British delegates, experts, and other officials who will attend at Geneva during the Disarmament Conference, and the estimated total cost?

Mr. EDEN: I would refer my hon. Friend to the replies given to questions on this subject asked by my right hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Burton (Colonel Gretton) on Thursday last.

Mr. BROCKLEBANK: Has the sum of £40,000 already been provided for?

Mr. EDEN: I must ask for notice of that question.

Oral Answers to Questions — RUSSIA (DEBTS, CLAIMS AND COUNTER-CLAIMS).

Sir WILLIAM DAVISON: 67.
asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs what steps the Government now propose to take to secure payment for British nationals of the debts due to them from the Russian Soviet Government, in view of the fact that it has now been decided to discontinue negotiations on the matter, and also having regard to the fact that a settlement of this question was one of the conditions of the resumption of relations between this country and Soviet Russia in accordance with the terms of the protocol of the 3rd October, 1929?

Mr. EDEN: My right hon. Friend regrets that, in view of the attitude of the Soviet Government in this matter, it would be useless to proceed with the negotiations at the present time. I can assure my hon. Friend that no aspect of this matter is being overlooked, but I have now nothing to add to the full reply given by my right hon. Friend on Tuesday last.

Sir W. DAVISON: Do not the Government think that it would be desirable, in view of these negotiations, which have now been going on for years, to give notice to terminate the trade agreement?

Mr. EDEN: My hon. Friend has been told earlier that all the aspects of the Anglo-Russian negotiations are under consideration. This is one aspect and the trade agreement is another.

Oral Answers to Questions — ANGLO-ARGENTINE TRAMWAYS COMPANY.

Lord SCONE: 68.
asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether he is aware that 11,000,000 of preference and debenture shares of the Anglo-Argentine Tramways Company out of some 16,000,000 held by British investors are in default, mainly owing to the refusal of the Argentine authorities to sanction an increase in fares, although the company are working under the same conditions as in 1908, with the addition of various new difficulties; and whether he will consider the advisability of addressing official representations to the Argentine Government as to the hardship involved thereby to numbers of British investors?

Mr. EDEN: His Majesty's Government have watched with growing concern the progressive deterioration in the position of this important company, which appears to be due to factors outside their control. While various causes, including unrestricted competition by "taxi-buses" have contributed to this state of affairs, it is understood that the chief difficulty has been the obligation still imposed on the company to continue working under a scale of charges originally fixed in 1908, which has little relation to present-day conditions. A Commission was appointed in April last to study the question, and His Majesty's Ambassador in Buenos Aires, who has, under instructions from His Majesty's Government, frequently drawn the attention of the Argentine Government to the great hardship imposed on numerous investors by the persistence of these conditions, had good grounds for hoping that action would be taken. Unfortunately no progress appears to have been made, but my right hon. Friend will continue to give the matter his close attention.

Lord SCONE: Is it not a fact that this company has had to suspend payment on the interest of one of its mortgage debenture stocks and is unable to do anything to ameliorate the conditions of its workers—with whom it has always maintained friendly relations—simply because of the unyielding attitude of the Argentine Government?

Mr. EDEN: I believe that that is so. We hope that the matter will be settled by negotiation. If it is not, then His Majesty's Government will obviously have to consider what further steps they can take.

Mr. T. WILLIAMS: Is it not the case that both the Under-Secretary and the hon. Gentleman who put the question believe in unrestricted competition?

Oral Answers to Questions — NAVAL AND MILITARY PENSIONS AND GRANTS.

Mr. LUNN: 71.
asked the Minister of Pensions whether pensions payable to British ex-service men now resident in the Colonies, or other countries, receive the equivalent of the exchange value of the pound sterling?

The MINISTER of PENSIONS (Major Tryon): Pensions granted under the Royal Warrants are in terms of sterling and payment is made in sterling or its equivalent. Where payment of the full equivalent of sterling in local currency is not made on the normal pay-day arrangements have been, or are being, made with the authorities concerned to effect any necessary adjustment.

Mr. LUNN: 72.
asked the Minister of Pensions the number of over-seven-year applications received by the Ministry up to 31st December, 1931; the number to whom pensions have been awarded; the number that have received limited compensation or treatment; and the number of applications received from widows for pensions on the ground that the death of the husband was due to war service and whose claims were first rejected by the Ministry as not coming under the Royal Warrant of 1924, as the deceased was not in receipt of pension or treatment allowances at death, but have since been granted under special sanction?

Major TRYON: I have no complete record of the number of new applications, but about 27,000 were received during the two years ended 31st December, 1931. Between 1926 and 31st December, 1931, about 1,700 were admitted to pension and about 700 to other forms of pecuniary grant, while about 600 were found to require only treatment, which was provided. Up to December, 1931, awards were made under special sanction to 120 widows of men who were not in receipt of pension or treatment allowances at death, but I am unable to say how many of these applications had previously been rejected.

Oral Answers to Questions — AGRICULTURE.

WAGES.

Mr. PARKINSON: 78.
asked the Minister of Agriculture the counties in which wage reductions have taken place in respect of agricultural labourers since 1930?

The MINISTER of AGRICULTURE (Sir John Gilmour): It is not possible to state what changes have taken place in the actual wages of agricultural workers, but so far as the minimum
weekly wages fixed under the Agricultural Wages (Regulation) Act for ordinary adult male workers are concerned, reductions have taken place since 1930 in the following areas: Cheshire, Derbyshire, Gloucestershire, the Kesteven and Lindsey Divisions of Lincolnshire, Northumberland, Shropshire, Suffolk, the East, North and West Ridings of Yorkshire. In addition, the Agricultural Wages Committees for Berkshire, Oxfordshire and Glamorgan have given notice that they propose to make reductions.

CHEESE.

Sir CHARLES CAYZER: 80.
asked the Minister of Agriculture whether he intends to call the attention of English cheese makers to the desirability of manufacturing some of the popular soft cheeses hitherto imported from the Continent; and whether any difficulty stands in the way of their production?

Sir J. GILMOUR: The economic possibilities of soft cheese making have been frequently brought to the notice of English cheese makers for some time past. I understand, however, that soil and climatic conditions limit the types of soft cheese which can be successfully manufactured in this country.

MARKETING.

Captain P. MACDONALD: 81.
asked the Minister of Agriculture whether any arrangements have yet been made by farmers in Great Britain to take advantage of the facilities offered by the Agricultural Marketing Act; and, if so, will he give particulars of such arrangements?

Sir J. GILMOUR: So far as I am aware, no scheme under the Agricultural Marketing Act is actually in preparation in England or Wales. As regards Scotland, I would refer my hon, and gallant Friend to my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Scotland.

Mr. T. WLLIAMS: Is the right hon. Gentleman taking any steps to make this Act effective?

IMPERIAL ECONOMIC CONFERENCE.

Brigadier-General BROWN: 82.
asked the Minister of Agriculture whether any steps are being taken for the representa-
tion of British agricultural interests at the Ottawa Conference; and whether he is now in consultation with any representative agricultural bodies as to the suggestions to be put before that conference?

The UNDER-SECRETARY of STATE for DOMINION AFFAIRS (Mr. Malcolm MacDonald): I have been asked to reply. My right hon. Friend the Minister of Agriculture and Fisheries is a member of the Cabinet Committee which is charged with the duty of making preparations, so far as the United Kingdom is concerned, for the Conference at Ottawa, and he is in close touch with the representative agricultural bodies. The composition of the delegation which will represent His Majesty's Government in the United Kingdom at the Ottawa Conference has not yet been settled.

Brigadier-General BROWN: Is it not a fact that at present consultations are going on with the Secretary of State for the Dominions by certain trade bodies, and will he see that agriculture is given a similar chance to be represented in the arrangements now being made with any other bodies?

Mr. MacDONALD: Arrangements, of course, are being made for agricultural representation in the discussions that are going on.

Brigadier-General BROWN: What bodies representing agricultural opinion are now being consulted in the same way as trade bodies are being consulted?

Mr. MacDONALD: I should require notice of that question.

Brigadier-General BROWN: That is the question that I asked and to which I wanted an answer.

Oral Answers to Questions — POST OFFICE.

AIR MAIL (STAMPS).

Sir PHILIP DAWSON: 83.
asked the Postmaster-General why in the past the Post Office have refrained from issuing special air-mail stamps, as is done by practically every other country; and whether, with a view to popularising Imperial Airways, he will consider doing so?

The POSTMASTER-GENERAL (Sir Kingsley Wood): It is the fixed policy of the Post Office not to issue special stamps save in the most exceptional circumstances. The only useful purpose to be served by an air-mail stamp would be to indicate that a letter is intended for transmission by air; but as in practice it would be impossible either to insist on the use of air-mail stamps to prepay air-mail letters, or to prevent their use on ordinary letters, this purpose could not be attained. The blue air-mail label, Which is prescribed by the International Air-Mail Convention, and can be obtained free of charge at any Post Office already, I would suggest provides a clear and satisfactory means of marking airmail letters.

MAIL CONTRACTS (INDIA AND EAST AFRICA).

Mr. HALL-CAINE: 85.
asked the Postmaster-General whether the subsidies paid to shipping companies in respect of carrying mails to India and East Africa, respectively, have been in any way affected by the introduction of air mail services; and, if so, to what extent?

Sir K. WOOD: The answer to the first part of the question is in the negative; the second part of the question does not therefore arise.

WIRELESS LICENCES.

Mr. LYONS: 86.
asked the Postmaster-General whether he will consider a reduction in the cost of wireless licences to listeners, or, alternatively, a reduction of fees paid therefrom to the British Broadcasting Corporation?

Sir K. WOOD: The amount of the wireless licence fee was considered by the Broadcasting Committees of 1923 and 1925; and both committees recommended that the fee be maintained at 10s. a year, and it would not appear that a reduction is justified. The payments made by the Post Office to the British Broadcasting Corporation are covered by agreements which are due to remain in force until the 31st December, 1936.

Mr. LYONS: Will the right hon. Gentleman make any representations to the British Broadcasting Corporation to bring an end to the spending of public money to make private inquiries into the lives of listeners?

Sir K. WOOD: That is another matter altogether.

PERTH, SCOTLAND.

Lord SCONE: 87.
asked the Postmaster-General if he is aware that during the past five years there have been frequent cases of letters meant for Perth, Scotland, being sent to Perth, Australia; and if he will issue instructions that all letters addressed simply to Perth shall be sent in the first place to Scotland?

Sir K. WOOD: I am aware that letters intended for Perth, Scotland, are occasionally sent to Perth, Western Australia, by mistake, but the standing instructions already provide that letters addressed to Perth only, without the name of a country, should be sent to Perth, Scotland, in the first instance. I will consider if any further steps are necessary in the matter.

CARNTYNE, GLASGOW (FACILITIES).

Mr. ANSTRUTHER-GRAY: 88.
asked the Postmaster-General whether he is aware that the area of the new housing scheme at Carntyne, Glasgow, E.1, which already contains more than 5,700 parliamentary voters, is without a post office or sub-post office; and whether, in view of the fact that this scheme is being enlarged, he will consider granting improved postal facilities?

Sir K. WOOD: It has not hitherto been possible to provide a Post Office in consequence of the lack of suitable premises, but it is hoped one will be provided as soon as this difficulty can be overcome.

WHITLEY COUNCIL.

Lieut.-Colonel FREMANTLE: 91.
asked the Postmaster-General whether he proposes to revive the Post Office Whitley Council; and, if so, whether he will see that associations of Post Office servants who are not represented on the Council have equal facilities and opportunities for making representations to the Department on matters with which their interests are concerned?

Sir K. WOOD: I have arranged to reconstitute the Post Office Whitley Council, and arrangements will be made whereby no decisions will be reached by the Council which affect the interests of other recognised associations not represented on the Council without those associations being given full opportunities to represent their views to the Department.

Lieut.-Colonel FREMANTLE: Will those facilities be equal?

Sir K. WOOD: I hope they will be sufficient, but we shall have to see how it works out in practice.

POSTAL ADDRESSES, COUNTRY TOWNS.

Brigadier-General MAKINS (for Major HARVEY): 84.
asked the Postmaster-General if he is aware of the local objections to the recent alteration in postal addresses of country towns whereby they are made to appear as part of some larger town; and if the postal services have been accelerated as the result of such alterations?

Sir K. WOOD: I have received representations about the alteration of the postal address of certain towns in the Newton Abbot area, to which my hon. and gallant Friend no doubt refers. In order to facilitate handling and transmission, it is the practice throughout the country to concentrate correspondence on a comparatively small number of post towns, each as a rule serving a wide area. As all correspondence for the towns in question must now pass through Newton Abbot it is essential, in order to avoid missorting and delay, that the name of that town should be included in the address.

POSTAGE (UNITED STATES).

Mr. BUCHAN-HEPBURN (for Mr. CROOM-JOHNSON): 89.
asked the Postmaster-General whether he has considered the question of increasing the postal rates to the United States of America to correspond with the increase of rates from that country to this country recently made; and, if so, with what result?

Sir K. WOOD: The question has been considered; but I do not think it desirable at present to increase the British postage rates to the United States.

Oral Answers to Questions — GREEN PARK (PICCADILLY WIDENING).

Sir W. DAVISON: 92.
asked the First Commissioner of Works the position and area of the strip of the Green Park which has recently been offered to the Westminster City Council for the widening of Piccadilly; whether this offer has been
accepted; and, if so, whether it will involve the cutting down of any trees at present standing in the Green Park?

The FIRST COMMISSIONER of WORKS (Mr. Ormsby-Gore): I would refer my hon. Friend to the reply given to his question on the 20th January, 1931, of which I am sending him a copy. Two small plane trees have been removed, and it is now found that a third must be sacrificed. I am considering the advisability of planting other trees to replace them. The negotiations with the Westminster Council are now completed.

Sir W. DAVISON: Owing to the considerable size of the next plane tree, cannot it be left in the pavement as the trees were further along Piccadilly?

Mr. ORMSBY-GORE: I gather that it is a question of the roots. The Underground station has to be built on that side of Piccadilly.

Oral Answers to Questions — STONEHENGE (BUILDINGS).

Mr. DONNER: 93
asked the First Commissioner of Works whether his Department is responsible for the erection of a tea house and cottages in the immediate vicinity of Stonehenge; and whether the land on which these buildings stand is vested in his Department?

Mr. ORMSBY-GORE: I am glad of this opportunity of correcting a misstatement of fact in a speech by my Noble Friend the Member for West Derbyshire (Marquess of Hartington) on the Second Reading of the Town and Country Planning Bill. The cottages are on land vested in my Department, and are occupied by my Department's caretakers. They were built for the previous private owner of Stonehenge, and my Department had no responsibility for their design or for the choice of their site. The tea house was built by a private individual on land which is still private property, and it was the erection of this building that led to the successful appeal for funds to buy up so much as possible of the privately owned land in the neighbourhood of Stonehenge and vest it in the National Trust.

Lieut.-Colonel FREMANTLE: Will the right bon. Gentleman's Department be prepared to come into line with the pro-
posals in the Town and Country Planning Bill with a view to reducing the eyesore of this building at Stonehenge?

Mr. ORMSBY-GORE: I do not think that my Department has raised any objection to that. As a matter of fact, the land round Stonehenge is not vested with my Department, but in the National Trust, which is the most suitable body for preserving this kind of open space.

Oral Answers to Questions — UNEMPLOYMENT (TRANSITIONAL PAYMENTS).

Mr. LUNN: 100.
asked the Minister of
Labour how many persons, men and

Determinations* given by the Leeds Public Assistance Committee between 12th November, 1931and 23rd January, 1932, on applications for transitional payments:


—
Allowed at normal benefit rates.
Allowed at rates lower than normal benefit rates.
Needs of applicants held not to justify payments.
Total determinations.


Men
…
…
6,171
11,181
3,614
20,966


Womem
…
…
495
653
842
1,990


Total
…
…
6,666
11,834
4,456
22,956


* The figures include renewals and revisions of determinations and the number of separate individuals concerned is not available.


Statistics are not available showing the numbers in each of the classes mentioned in the table who are now unemployed.

Mr. THORNE: 102.
asked the Minister of Labour the number of cases recommended for benefit by public assistance committees which have been disallowed by courts of referees?

Mr. HUDSON: The public assistance committees do not recommend for benefit. Their function as regards transitional payments is to assess the amount to be paid provided that the applicant is otherwise qualified to receive it. Where applications are referred to a court of referees to decide whether the applicant is normally in insurable employment, they may be referred concurrently to the public assistance committee for assessment in order that there may be no delay in making payment if the application is allowed by the court; the hon. Member will see, therefore, that there may be a disallowance by the court after an assessment has been made by the public assistance committee, but no statistics of cases are available.

women, have had their claims for transitional (unemployment) benefit dealt with by the Leeds Public Assistance Committee up to the latest date; how many are still receiving full benefit; how many have been reduced; and in how many cases no benefit is now being paid?

The PARLIAMENTARY SECRETARY to the MINISTRY of LABOUR (Mr. R. S. Hudson): As the reply includes a number of figures, I will, if I may, circulate a statement in the OFFICIAL REPORT. Transitional benefit is no longer payable, and the figures relate to transitional payments.

Following is the statement:

Mr. BUCHANAN: Did not the hon. Gentleman stop the practice, which arose when the Minister gave a guarantee that, pending the decision of the public assistance committee, no stoppage of benefit would take place?

Mr. HUDSON: The hon. Member knows that the practice is that the insurance officer where there is any question of doubt., does not disallow, but does not allow the benefit pending a decision of the Court of Referees. This procedure, we feel, is in the main in the men's own interest in order that there may be no delay in the event of the Court of Referees' decision being in the applicant's favour.

Mr. BUCHANAN: If the Court of Referees disallow a case and the public assistance committee has not inquired into it, is there any stoppage of payment, and did not the Minister give a guarantee that there would be no stoppage of
payment pending the Court of Referees disallowing a case and the public assistance committee coming to a decision?

Mr. HUDSON: if should like to see that question on the Paper.

Mr. THORNE: 103.
asked the Minister of Labour the number of men and women on transitional benefit in Warrington; the number disallowed; and if he can state the amount saved by such disallowance or the change over from ordinary unemployment benefit to transitional benefit?

Mr. HUDSON: The figures relate to transitional payments and not to transitional benefit, which is no longer payable. At 25th January, 1932, there were on the registers of the Warrington Employment Exchange 1,512 men and 85 women with applications authorised for transitional payments. Between 12th November and 25th January there were 855 men and 165 women in whose cases it had been determined by the public assistance committee that the needs of applicants did not justify payments. Figures of the saving are not available.

Oral Answers to Questions — THAMES WATERMEN AND LIGHTER MEN (DISPUTE).

Mrs. RUNGE: 101.
asked the Minister of Labour if he can now make any statement as to the position of the lock-out of Thames watermen and lightermen; whether he is aware of the disparity in wages between this class of riverside employé and other less skilled workers equally engaged on the riverside and whether his Department proposes to take any action to secure the use of conciliation machinery to obtain better conditions of employment for the men concerned?

Mr. R. S. HUDSON: As my hon. Friend is aware, a further ballot of the men has resulted in a majority against resumption of work on the provisional terms of settlement initialled on 17th December by the secretary to the Watermen, Lightermen, Tugmen and Bargemen's Union and recommended to their members for acceptance by the executive of the union. My right hon. Friend has satisfied himself that, if work is resumed, all questions on working conditions could be fully discussed by the agreed conciliation machinery and that no action is necessary on his part to secure its use.

Mrs. RUNGE: Has the hon. Gentleman's attention been called as a result of the dispute to a movement to deprive the watermen and lightermen of their privileges, and will the Government refuse to support any such movement without full inquiries?

Mr. HUDSON: I do not think that at the present moment it will be helpful for me to make any further comment on this most unfortunate dispute.

Oral Answers to Questions — PUBLIC HEALTH (IMPORTED MEAT).

Lord SCONE: 104.
asked the Minister of Health if he will consider the advisability of prohibiting the importation of boneless meat, in view of the difficulty of detecting unsoundness or disease in such meat?

The PARLIAMENTARY SECRETARY to the MINISTRY of HEALTH (Mr. Ernest Brown): The importation of boneless meat which affords insufficient means of identification with definite parts of a carcase is prohibited under the Imported Food Regulations of 1925. My right hon. Friend is now considering the amendment of these Regulations so as to require a recognised official certificate of the country of origin with all imports of fresh meat less than the whole carcase.

Oral Answers to Questions — ROYAL ARMY CLOTHING FACTORY, PIMLICO.

Mr. THORNE: 105.
asked the Financial Secretary to the War Office the reasons for closing the Royal Army Clothing Factory, Pimlico; if it is the intention to give the work to contractors; and, if so, whether the fair wage clause will be inserted in such contracts?

The FINANCIAL SECRETARY to the WAR OFFICE (Mr. Duff Cooper): As regards the first and second parts of the question, it has been decided on grounds of economy to close down the Royal Army Clothing Factory, Pimlico, and to obtain in future the requirements of clothing for the Army, with the possible exception of Full dress, from the trade. The answer to the last part of the question is in the affirmative.

Mr. THORNE: What are the Government going to do with this factory?

Mr. COOPER: We are going to surrender the lease of the factory to the owner.

Mr. LAWSON: How many workers will be thrown out of work as a result of the closing of this factory?

Mr. COOPER: I cannot give the exact number.

Commander MARSDEN: May I ask if the Government will place the contracts for this clothing in the various parts of London where the employés who have been discharged live?

Mr. COOPER: I do not think that that would be possible, but we shall do our best to assist those discharged to obtain work elsewhere.

Oral Answers to Questions — ALIENS (OFFENCES).

Sir C. CAYZER: 106.
asked the Secretary of State for the Home Department whether his attention has been directed to the recent increase in the number of aliens charged with offences; whether he has any information as to the extent to which this increase is attributable to the recent extension from two months to three months of the period of grace at the end of which aliens must report themselves to the police; and whether he has considered a reversion to the former period of two months' grace?

The SECRETARY of STATE for the HOME DEPARTMENT (Sir Herbert Samuel): I have no reason to think that there has been any marked increase of the kind indicated. No separate figures of offences committed by aliens are available. If the hon. Member has any information on the point, I should be grateful if he would let me have it. I understand that the Commissioner of Police of the Metropolis has no evidence that the extension of the time allowed for registration from two to three months has had any effect at all on the number of aliens charged in the Metropolitan Police District.

Oral Answers to Questions — CRIME (USE OF MOTOR CARS).

Sir W. DAVISON: 107.
asked the Home Secretary how many cases of robbery with violence, or of raids on shops, where the perpetrators have had the assistance of
motor cars, have occurred in the Metropolitan Police District area during the past three months; and in how many cases have convictions been secured?

Sir H. SAMUEL: During the three months ended 31st January, there were 32 cases of robbery with violence; eight persons are now on remand in respect of three of these cases; none have yet been convicted. There were 99 raids on shops; and 21 persons have been convicted or found guilty, and 10 others are awaiting hearing or trial in respect of 17 of these cases.

Sir W. DAVISON: In view of the large number of crimes aided by motor cars, will the right hon. Gentleman consider the desirability of inflicting some special penalty in the case of those crimes of violence and raids on shops where motors are used?

Sir H. SAMUEL: The question of penalties is a matter for the Court. The maximum penalty allowed by law is very heavy. The Commissioner of Police is very much concerned about this matter and is giving it his close personal attention.

Oral Answers to Questions — MORMON MISSIONARIES.

Sir JOSEPH LAMB: 108.
asked the Home Secretary if his attention has been called to the arrival in this country, on the 28th January last, of 30 Mormon missionaries to begin a 12 months' campaign in England from headquarters at Handsworth, Birmingham; and if he will state if a declaration of this intention was included in their application for admission into this country?

Sir H. SAMUEL: I cannot identify the 30 persons referred to, but I understand that 10 Mormon students or missionaries arrived at Plymouth on the 28th January. Six were transmigrants and have already gone on to other countries; four were given leave to land, it being understood that they were coming to this country for a period of two years.

Oral Answers to Questions — INCOME TAX (CO-OPERATIVE SOCIETIES).

Mr. POTTER: 110.
asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer the estimated amount
of tax received from co-operative societies in the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland in respect of Schedules A and B for the fiscal year 1931–32?

The FINANCIAL SECRETARY to the TREASURY (Major Elliot): The receipt of Income Tax Schedules A and B from co-operative societies is not accounted for separately, but it is estimated that on the basis of a standard rate of 5s. in the £ the Income Tax paid under Schedules A and B is in the neighbourhood of £500,000.

Oral Answers to Questions — PENSIONS AND RETIRED PAY.

Mr. McENTEE: 111.
asked the Financial Secretary to the Treasury if he will state, at the latest convenient date, the number of retired civil servants in receipt of pension in each department of the Civil Service and the annual charge for pensions in respect of each department; the number of persons in receipt of retired pay or service pensions from the Navy, Army, and Air Force, and the annual charge in respect of each of the Services; and whether he could furnish similar particulars in respect of local government officers, police, and teachers?

Major ELLIOT: With the hon. Member's permission, I will circulate the figures in the OFFICIAL REPORT.

Following are the figures:

IV.—TEACHERS' PENSIONS.


—
Number of pensioners.
Annual cost of pensions.




£


England and Wales
33,042
4,203,200


Scotland
4,474
645,275


Total
37,516
£4,858,475

V.—LOCAL GOVERMENT OFFICERS' PENSIONS.

No similar statistics are available.

Notes.-1. Most Civil Servants and Teachers receive in addition to pension lump sum payments on retirement, while if they die in service gratuities are payable to their representatives. Provision was made in the current estimates for such grants as follows:

£


Civil Servants
…
…
1,770,000


Teachers
…
…
1,880,000

2. The following amounts are recoverable in the current year from the Governments of the Irish Free State and Northern Ireland in respect of non-effective payments:

£


Civil Services
…
285,000


Royal Irish Constabulary
…
1,370,000

Oral Answers to Questions — TRAFFIC SIGNALS (PICCADILLY).

Major SALMON: 112.
asked the Minister of Transport if he will consider erecting electric traffic-control signals in Piccadilly and the streets leading there-from: what the cost of erecting such signals would be; and what would be the saving in the numbers of police employed on point duty in these thoroughfares?

The MINISTER of TRANSPORT (Mr. Pybus): A scheme for the erection of electric traffic-control signals in a portion of Piccadilly, the estimated cost of which is £1,800, is being considered. I am advised by the Commissioner of Police that, whilst the experience gained in Oxford Street indicates that the erection of signals in the portion of Piccadilly in question would result in economies, he is unable to give an estimate of the saving in the number of police employed on point duty until some actual experience of the working of the signals has been obtained.

Major SALMON: Can the hon. Gentleman say when he will be in a position to
tell the House at what date these signals will be erected in Piccadilly?

Mr. PYBUS: I am not in a position to say that now.

Oral Answers to Questions — DARTMOOR PRISON (DISTURBANCES).

Mr. MORGAN JONES: (by Private Notice) asked the Home Secretary whether he has any statement to make to the House with reference to the Inquiry into the recent disturbances at Dartmoor?

Sir H. SAMUEL: The report of the Inquiry that has been held is now in the hands of Members, and it is unnecessary for me to traverse any part of the ground covered in that report. There are certain matters, however, arising from the Inquiry on which I would ask leave to make a statement to the House.
The Inquiry shows that the prison officers as a body behaved well, and it is a matter of satisfaction that no one was killed and no escapes occurred. I am conveying to the staff an expression of my appreciation of their behaviour in very trying circumstances. Their conduct was fully in accordance with the high reputation of the British Prison Service for reliability, courage and restraint. This is not the occasion to apportion praise or blame to individuals, but the House may be assured that, as regards the very small number of officers who are mentioned in the report as being suspected of grave misconduct, no pains will be spared to obtain all available evidence with a view to appropriate action.
The Report confirms the view I had already publicly expressed of the great value of the assistance so promptly rendered by the police of Plymouth and of Devon, and I have sent to the two chief constables letters of thanks and appreciation.
As regards the prisoners who rendered substantial assistance to the authorities, each case is being carefully investigated, and it is certainly my intention to give effect to the suggestion in Mr. du Parcq's Report that the conduct of those who behaved courageously and well should be suitably recognised.
As regards the prisoners who took an active part in the disorders, it is intended that criminal proceedings shall be instituted forthwith in open Court against those whose offences are too grave to be dealt with as mere breaches of prison discipline. The conduct of others will be investigated by the Board of Visitors, who are an independent body, now consisting almost entirely of justices of the peace, which has been established by Statute for dealing, among other matters, with serious prison offences.
From the outset it had been contemplated that Mr. du Parcq's Inquiry would be followed by judicial and disciplinary proceedings. He was not commissioned to try the offenders and could have no power to do so; and in order that his inquiry should not prejudice the course of future proceedings, it was essential that it should be conducted in private. For this reason the names of convicts are omitted from the report, and for the same reason it is not possible to publish the notes of evidence. Mr. du Parcq very properly explained to the prisoners whom he called before him that he was not concerned with their guilt or innocence and informed them that their statements would be treated as confidential.
With regard to the future of Dartmoor Prison, the report calls attention to certain serious disadvantages connected with this prison, including its isolated position and the lack of amenities for the members of the staff and their families. Apart altogether from the recent incidents, these and other considerations affecting Dartmoor Prison had already been under review. On 19th November last I held a conference with the Chairman of the Prison Commissioners and my principal advisers at the Home Office, at which a scheme was decided upon for making a very large reduction in the population of this prison as soon as alternative arrangements could be devised. This proposal was being pressed forward as one of the measures to be adopted for the purpose of effecting economies in Government expenditure, and the financial arrangements that were involved were about to be submitted to the Treasury. I may mention that Dartmoor is an exceptionally expensive establishment to maintain (the farming of the land attached to the prison is far from being an economic proposition). The decision as to Dartmoor was also con-
nected with a large scheme of reorganisation, which included a plan for making better arrangements in a separate establishment at Chelmsford for the training of young convicts.
In pursuance of that decision, the admission of fresh cases to Dartmoor Prison had been discontinued since the 19th November last. Mr. du Parcq's report confirms the desirability of the measures that were contemplated. The recent outbreak also emphasises the risks of concentrating in one establishment any considerable number of convicts of the specially dangerous type to whom the report calls attention, and I propose, in consultation with my advisers, to consider the best arrangements for meeting this situation. An authoritative committee was appointed by my predecessor in April, 1931, to consider the whole problem of the persistent offender, and I hope to have the benefit of the report of that committee when these measures are being formulated.
Many exaggerated reports have arisen out of these occurrences. The damage done to the buildings is estimated to be less than £3,000, even if it should be decided to reconstruct the portion that was burnt. The assistance of the military was invited on the night of Monday, the 25th January, when a small force of soldiers was stationed outside the prison, because the officers sent to relieve the prison staff had not yet arrived, the night was foggy, and there was some nervousness in the locality. This assistance was requisitioned for one night only, but special police precautions had to he continued for some time because there were reports, which might or might not have been well-founded, of the possibility of organised attempts at escape with assistance from outside the prison; and the situation was complicated by the presence of numbers of strangers in the neighbourhood, some of whom might have been there for illicit purposes.
The report, which has appeared in some newspapers, of a murderous attack on a warder at Dartmoor on Saturday last is quite untrue. An incident occurred, too trivial even to call for minor disciplinary action. There has been no act of violence at the prison of any kind since the original disorder was suppressed within two hours of its outbreak.
I feel sure that the House will endorse the expression of appreciation which I have conveyed to Mr. du Parcq for his prompt, complete and judicial survey of all the circumstances connected with this occurrence.

Mr. JONES: While appreciating the very full report which the Home Secretary has given to the House, may I ask whether he does not feel that even that report, full as it is, leaves a large number of important issues still unanswered, and will he not, in the public interest, have a fuller public inquiry with a view to discovering in the administration what was the cause of this remarkable outbreak?

Sir H. SAMUEL: No, Sir, I think the report is very complete. If any other matters are to be brought forward by the convicts concerned, that can be done when the trial takes place.

Mr. JONES: In view of the very grave uneasiness that has been occasioned in the public mind, partly by the proceedings at Dartmoor, and partly by the report itself, will the Home Secretary consider allowing us a little time, arranged through the usual channel, for a discussion upon this report in all its applications?

Sir H. SAMUEL: That question should be addressed to the Leader of the House.

Mr. BUCHANAN: If it is decided to proceed against certain of the so-called more dangerous and bad type of criminals, will they be allowed proper facilities for being defended, if any punitive action is to be taken against them?

Sir H. SAMUEL: Certainly they will have every facility of that kind, and, if assistance by counsel is desired, the Poor Prisoners' Defence Act will apply, and all facilities will be given to them to ensure a fair trial.

Mr. BUCHANAN: In view of the fact that the report has been published, and that it is based on evidence given before the Commissioner, will the Home Secretary not reconsider his decision in regard to publishing the evidence, seeing that no one can make up his mind as to whether the decisions arrived at are correct or not unless the evidence, which was laid before the inquiry, is before them as well as the report itself?

Sir H. SAMUEL: No, Sir, for the reason stated in my answer it is not possible to publish the evidence. If it had been known that the evidence was to be published, I feel sure that the inquiry would not have been so thorough and complete as it was.

Sir W. DAVISON: Will the Home Secretary consider whether the powers of the Governor are adequate to inflict punishment without waiting for adjudication?

Sir H. SAMUEL: I think the powers possessed by the Governors have proved to be very adequate.

Sir NAIRNE STEWART SANDEMAN: When did the Home Office first get an intimation that there was trouble at Dartmoor?

Sir H. SAMUEL: That is stated in the Report.

Mr. HANNON: In such embarrassing circumstances did not the Governor do exceptionally well?

Sir H. SAMUEL: That matter is dealt with in the Report, and I have nothing to add.

Mr. BUCHANAN: In view of the fact that three questions are involved, firstly the punishment of the criminals, secondly the conduct of the Governor, and thirdly the conduct of certain prison officials, is it not important, in view of the fact that all these people are under a cloud in one respect or another, that we should, in the interests of public decency, have the whole of the evidence placed before us so that we may allocate the blame in regard to these matters?

Sir H. SAMUEL: I am certain that the House can rely upon Mr. du Parcq having drawn his conclusions quite clearly upon the evidence placed before him?

Mr. JONES: When the board of visitors make their inquiries in certain cases, will the evidence be taken in public or in private?

Sir H. SAMUEL: I should like to have notice of that question.

BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE.

Mr. MAXTON: Can the Lord President of the Council tell us when he proposes that the very contentious Motion standing in the name of the Attorney-General shall be taken:
That an humble Address be presented to His Majesty representing that the state of business in the King's Bench Division requires that a vacancy in the number of puisne judges of the King's Bench Division should be filled, and praying that His Majesty will be graciously pleased to fill such vacancy accordingly, in pursuance of the Supreme Court of Judicature (Consolidation) Act, 1925."—[The Attorney-General.]

Mr. BALDWIN: I hope to be in a position to announce that later in the week when announcing other business.

BILL PRESENTED.

FANCY JEWELLERY (STANDARD TRADE DESCRIPTIONS) BILL,

"to amend the Merchandise Marks Acts, 1887 to 1926, and to define certain trade descriptions as applied to articles in the fancy jewellery and allied trades," presented by Sir Austen Chamberlain; supported by Mr. Amery, Mr. Hannon, and Mr. Smedley Crooke; to be read a Second time upon Monday next, and to be printed. [Bill 18.]

SELECTION (STANDING COMMITTEES).

STANDING COMMITTEE A.

Mr. William Nicholson reported from the Committee of Selection; That they had discharged the following Members from Standing Committee A: Rear-Admiral Campbell, Colonel Chapman, Mr. Conant, Mr. Duckworth, Captain Hope, and Major Muirhead; and had appointed in substitution: Brigadier-General Clifton Brown, Captain Dower, Viscount Ednam, Captain Elliston, Mr. David Reid, and Mr. Rhys.

Mr. William Nicholson further reported from the Committee; That they had discharged the following Member from Standing Committee A (added in respect of the Town and Country Planning Bill): Mr. Harbord; and had appointed in substitution: Mr. Mabane.

Reports to lie upon the Table.

CABINET RESPONSIBILITY.

Mr, LANSBURY: I beg to move,
That this House can have no confidence in a Government which confesses its inability to decide upon a united policy and proposes to violate the long-established constitutional principle of Cabinet responsibility by embarking upon tariff measures of far-reaching effect which several of His Majesty's Ministers declare will be disastrous to the trade and industry of the country.
I am one of the very few Members of a Cabinet who resigned because of a disagreement with the party to which they were attached, thus giving proof of their adherence to principle in social and political matters. I want to recall the fact that the hon. Member for South Poplar (Mr. D. Adams) and his predecessor, Mr.Sam March, and myself, went to prison for six weeks for nothing to do with our personal interest nor for any real offence against the law. During this discussion no doubt we shall hear a great deal about people s conscientious views and their conscientious decisions, but there cannot be any such thing as a collective conscience. Although it may be true that the Home Secretary and his friends have been permitted by the Cabinet to take the action they have taken, they themselves must be responsible, and they cannot put the responsibility on the Cabinet and say, "Well, we would have resigned, but the Cabinet told us not to do so." I should like to ask the Minister of Education, or any Liberal Minister who speaks later, to tell us whether they would both speak and vote against the Government if by so doing they would turn the Government out? It is important that we should have that matter cleared up, because we should then know how far the right hon. Gentleman really feels upon this matter, how far his convictions carry him. I hope that the Minister of Education will reply, but I should be quite satisfied if some other Member of the Liberal party would tell us, because it is so easy to be courageous when there is no danger. I hope that the Home Secretary will take notice of the fact that the present Prime Minister, who was lately Leader of the Labour party, continually chided the minority in our party with being very courageous in marching into the Lobby, when they knew perfectly well the Tory party would save
us from defeat, or, on occasion, the Liberal party would save us from defeat. I cannot myself indulge in any great laudation of the right hon. Gentleman and his friends for their courage in this matter, because it is evident that they would not risk turning the Government out if they had power. I should very much like an answer to that question. In passing, I would say that no one can absolve another person's conscience. The fact that 16 people have told these four other right hon. Gentlemen what they can do, does not absolve them from responsibility.
4.0 p.m.
In regard to the general question, we shall be told, I have no doubt, that this quite an exception. I will come to that in a minute. I want now to say that we are not opposing this procedure because we think that such procedure should not take place on occasion, or because we are opposed to the Members of the Government having freedom of action. I do not understand that the Lord President is going to say to-day that the Government propose permanently to alter the procedure that has been followed for the last 100 years with regard to Cabinet responsibility. If because of the conditions prevailing in the country the Cabinet had come to the conclusion that we ought to have a change in this matter, I think he would have found us quite ready, not only to discuss but to support very drastic changes both in the methods of procedure in this House, and certainly in the relationship which should exist between the Cabinet and the Government. No one, I think, has ever argued that a Cabinet of 20 men, or even a dozen or three men, would always say aye or no on any particular question under discussion, or at all times. We are not arguing that today, or that a Government should not, in some circumstances, make an exception, as is proposed now.
The point that we want to make in that connection is that, so far, we know that the Government have no intention of asking Parliament to change the present position. There is no proposal to abolish the constitutional practice which, in spite of the present Cabinet decision, still remains the custom and unwritten law of the land. At the risk of being charged with not being a constitutional lawyer, I will, in the presence of the Attorney-General, state what the ordinary person like my-
self thinks the position is. Members of the Cabinet are members of the Privy Council. They are sworn in before they take office. They are appointed by the Prime Minister, who is appointed by the Crown, and not by this House. The Prime Minister, in turn, submits the names of his colleagues to His Majesty. Of course, in the acceptance of a Cabinet His Majesty has to take account of opinion in this House, and relies on the advice of such of his advisers as he thinks necessary to call in to advise him. Therefore, the Cabinet is not something which is appointed by this House, but the constitutional practice is that the Cabinet is approved by the King, but appointed and chosen by the Prime Minister—[Interruption.] I take it that the right hon. Gentleman the Member for West Birmingham (Sir A. Chamberlain) will have an opportunity of speaking, and there is plenty of legal ability here to prove if I am wrong.
The further point I want to make is that the Cabinet does not of itself resign. It is the Prime Minister who resigns, and, by doing so, the Cabinet comes to an end. It is necessary that that should be understood, because in this matter we have not heard the Prime Minister. I regret the cause of his absence, and hope that he will soon be recovered. We do not know at present on which side of the question the Prime Minister stands, and if it should be that he is on the side of the dissentients, then we have the extraordinary position of a Cabinet being divided, and the head being on one side, and, I suppose, the body on the other. I want also to say that the Cabinet is looked upon as a unit, that the one person who represents the Cabinet is the Prime Minister, and that the Prime Minister is the one person who represents to the Crown the decision of the Cabinet. About that there is not any question:
The Cabinet is a unit—a unit as regards the Sovereign and a unit as regards the legislature.
It is not maintained by the authorities that you can have two voices in regard to the Cabinet in this House:
Its views are laid before the Sovereign and before Parliament as if they were the views of one man. It gives its advice as a single whole, both in the Royal closet and in the hereditary or the representative House.
That is the statement, not of a theorist, but of a man well versed in practical affairs, and recognised as an authority on these matters. I should have thought the Minister of Education would have considered that the late Lord Morley was a respectable authority on such a matter, but Todd's "Parliamentary Government" also says on this question:
It is not therefore allowable for a Cabinet Minister to oppose the measures of government, to shrink from an unqualified responsibility in respect to the same"—
This is a point which the Home Secretary might take to heart—
to refrain from assisting his colleagues in the advocacy of their particular measures in Parliament, or to omit the performance of any administrative act which may be necessary to carry out a decision of the Government, even though he may not have been a consenting party thereto, A Minister who infringes any one of these rules is bound to tender his immediate resignation of office.
I could have quoted another responsible statesman whom the Liberal Members of the Government and the supporters of the Government would appreciate, namely, the late Mr. Gladstone, but I think those two statements will not be controverted. I understand that it is accepted that that is the constitutional usage. I do not think that anyone here will quarrel with those statements of what has been the custom and usage in regard to Cabinet responsibility, but I think the House is entitled to be told—and I am glad to find myself in this matter in agreement with something which was said by, I think, two of the speakers in the Debate last Thursday—to what extent this go-as-you-please policy is to be practised. I should like to know who will report to the King. Will the Home Secretary take up a minority position or will someone on his behalf write a daily letter to His Majesty regarding the sort of pantomime that takes place when Ministers contradict one another, as they did last week? Then I should like to know whether they are going to be allowed to continue their opposition during the Debates upon which we are just going to enter? There will be weeps of discussion on these tariff proposals, and will the Lord President tell the House and country whether these hon. and right hon. Gentlemen are to be allowed to continue a day by day fight, first in the Cabinet,
wasting the time of the country, when we are told that every moment is of importance, and when the House of Commons is discussing these matters, will the right hon. Gentleman lead the campaign against his colleagues on that bench, and will they be able to come down day by day and move and support Amendments against these proposals?
Then I would ask the Lord President, who is going to Ottawa to support the Government? It is a, sort of "Alice in Wonderland" we live in now, but I should have thought we would have wanted a united delegation to Ottawa. I will not say anything about the proceedings of the last Conference, but I should very much like to know whether Viscount Snowden is going to assist in negotiating Imperial Preference? I should have liked to have heard the Postmaster-General on that matter. It is very important. Are we going to speak with two voices to the Dominions? How is it expected that agreement with the Dominions will be obtained when within the Cabinet, and perhaps taking part in the negotiations, there is Lord Snowden, who up to the present has been furiously, violently opposed to the making of any effort to give the Dominions any preference or any assistance of any kind? Are the docile sheep below the Gangway to be allowed freedom of expression and freedom of voting? Will they be allowed to go as they please? Again, if Lord Sankey suddenly finds himself in disagreement with the Indian policy of the Government, will he be allowed to go as he pleases? May he speak with one voice in the House of Lords and the Secretary of State for India with another voice here?
I should very much like to know how far we are to go in this matter. If the Prime Minister, as is quite possible, disagrees with the Foreign Secretary over the policy concerning Shanghai and China generally, or disarmament, is he to be allowed freedom to denounce his own Foreign Secretary? [interruption.] The question of disarmament and foreign policy is vital to us. Is the question of introducing protective tariffs in this country equally important? I should like to know, and I think the country would like to know, whether the Prime Minister will be able to speak as he would have
spoken if he were standing here instead of me.
There is the question of future legislation. Already an. agitation is going on, and a number of influential members of the Cabinet are taking part in it, to the effect that now is the day and now is the hour when the Parliament Act can be repealed—[interruption.] Yes; I will send the right hon. Gentleman the cutting of a speech that was made on this subject by one of his great supporters, in which it was said that this was the day and this was the hour, with all these legions of supporters, to undo the evil work that was done by the Asquith Government when they passed the Parliament Act with the help of the Home Secretary. If the Government think that this legislation should be brought forward, what is going to be the position? Will the Labour Ministers and the Liberal Ministers have a free hand to do as they please? Then the Prime Minister—I cannot help bringing him in again—suggested in a speech that the working of the transitional benefit regulations is to be reconsidered, and perhaps, if good cause is shown, may be changed. There may be profound disagreement on this matter. I think I know the mind of the Chancellor of the Exchequer on these questions as well as most people, because I have "had some," and I know perfectly well. that, if any effort is made to ease those regulations, the Treasury, if it is going to cost them any money, will come down against any change on their heels and their toes at the same time. But suppose that the Prime Minister feels strongly for the people whom he represents, and says that this ought to be done, while the Cabinet by a majority say that it shall not be done, may the Prime Minister come and stand by his own people for once in this matter? Is he going to be allowed a free hand in this matter? [Interruption.] I am putting these questions seriously; they are all serious questions; but I can always understand the hilarity of this House, especially when you have a thumping majority behind you. If I were in the same position I would be like 'that also. Anyhow, both the House and the country want an answer to these questions.
It was said by the Home Secretary—and I was amazed when I read it, though
I ought not to have been—that foreign Governments are impressed by our national unity. It is national humbug, that is all. It is an insult to the intelligence of any of the Ambassadors in this country to say that they do not understand quite well that there is no national unity behind this Government. With all these embattled hosts around them, the fact remains that they represent two-thirds of the electors and we represent one-third. But I should like to remind the Home Secretary that, if he were making this speech, which he would do much better than myself, one thing that he would try to prove would be that his small numbers represented millions outside, and that, if only we had a really representative system, he would have a, couple of hundred supporters behind him. That is our case also, but I am not going to cry about that; I am sure that the up and down of the business will give my friends their majority in due course. The voters at the last election were called upon to support a discordant crowd of men who agreed about nothing except one thing, and that was let out by Lord Londonderry, a close personal friend of the Prime Minister, by sheer accident. I agree that, Lord Londonderry is a person of political sagacity and honesty, but he let the cat right out of the bag when he said, "The object of all of us is to crush and destroy the Socialist party." We cannot have any Old Mother Hubbard talk about national unity after that. When there are nearly 7,000,000 voters who said, "No, we are baying none of that, we are standing by the Labour party," it shows that even Lord Londonderry did not have so much influence as he imagined.
There is another question that arises in connection with this matter. Someone made the point, I think in a letter to the Press either to-day or on Saturday, that abroad, when there is a Coalition Government, disagreement is allowed. Perhaps the Lord President, if he is going to take that line, may give us a case in point. I do not believe there has ever been a case in this country or abroad where a Government has had within its ranks Members who have been permitted to speak and vote against a first-class vital issue upon which the Cabinet as a whole was agreed. It certainly does not happen in France. I
was speaking to a French statesman last [...] and he said that of course there are disagreements, but that, when once a matter is decided, unless Ministers stand together in the Chamber they of course have to go out. It is said that this Government was a collection of doctors. I do not know whether they are doctors of medicine, or what kind of doctors they are, but they have proved themselves to be nothing better than old-fashioned quacks— the sort of cheap-jack doctors that one meets in the market place, each wanting to sell his wares, and all pretending to compete with one another. You know how they "do each other down," or appear to, and then share the swag afterwards. Each one of them tries to talk the others down—I have been in many a market place and seen it—[Interruption.]—I have not been talked down yet —and each one of these gentlemen strives to prove that his pills are better than the other fellow's. I was reminded of that when I listened to the Home Secretary on the one hand and the Chancellor of the Exchequer on the other; and then the Financial Secretary to the Treasury weighed in with a most delightful speech which proved quite rightly that Codlin was the friend, not Short.
What is to happen to the patient while all this is going on? What are the people outside asking themselves when these speeches are made by supposed responsible people who behave just as the quack does in the market place, each declaring that his point of view is the only one to save the nation? It is quite certain, in our minds anyhow, that neither Protection nor Free Trade can save the nation. We know what Britain was in the Hungry Forties. A right hon. Gentleman on the other side of the House on Thursday night quoted Disraeli amid great enthusiasm, but he forgot that later on Disraeli said that Protection was dead and damned. I do not know how right hon. Gentlemen opposite are going to square the two statements, but we know that the present condition of finance and industry has been brought about when both systems were in existence. No one in this House can deny that countries under Protection and countries under Free Trade are suffering equally from what is called the world depression and from the crisis that has arisen in the
industrial and monetary affairs of the world. I point that out at this juncture because I do not want it to be imagined that we are taking the line that we are taking merely because of the theoretical arguments in favour of Free Trade or of tariffs. We think something entirely different is needed. But the point is that both the Simonites and the followers of the Home Secretary—I was not sure whether Samuelites was a good word or not—the whole-hoggers and the little piggers, want the best of both worlds. They want to be able to say, "Of course, we kept the Protectionist Government in power," and at the end they will say, "Please Sir, it was not I. I only stayed in to preserve national unity and to uphold the prestige of the Government." I heard the hon. and gallant Gentleman the Member for Wallasey (Lieut.-Colonel MooreBrabazon) tell the Lord President the other day that he could change the occupants of that row twice over and have, if anything, better men than there are there. I should not like to say that, but one of the right hon. Gentleman's own friends said it.
4.30 p.m.
I want to say a word on the question of propaganda and publicity in regard to Cabinet secrets. A lot of nonsense is talked about that. Whenever I wanted to know what was going to happen during the coming week—you do not get a lot of information at the Cabinet meetings as to what is going to happen during the forthcoming 10 days—I looked at the "Times" newspaper. It always had a very clear, definite column telling you all about the Cabinet. I was once at a Cabinet meeting—I am not giving away anything that matters—when we were discussing a most important international question. We were all exhorted to be very careful and not to breathe a word. I went out feeling a most important person. I walked down Downing Street and at the corner bought an "Evening Standard," and it had the whole story. It is forgotten that, whatever may have been the case years ago, nowadays there is a Cabinet secretariat and a multitude of documents are typed and printed. I have had secret documents, I was going to say by the million, but from 50 to 100 persons at least knew the contents. I have heard it said
that two people cannot keep a secret, and I do not think they can. Only one can, and he has to be sure that he has not a wife or a girl. Is there anyone in the House who listened to the Chancellor of the Exchequer last Thursday and who reads the newspapers who did not know beforehand the main points of the scheme that the right hon. Gentleman told us about? I think it would be very good indeed if all the Cabinet records, conclusions and minutes were published. The ordinary Cabinet Minister never sees the minutes of the Cabinet. He only sees the small summary which is called the conclusion. I should like to see both the minutes taken by the Cabinet secretary and the conclusions, except in very exceptional cases, published immediately after the Cabinet meeting.
I want to say something about the working of this policy. I want to know the extent of it and how far hon. and right hon. Gentlemen are going to be allowed to go. The nation is now reaping the fruits of the foul campaign that was carried through at the Election. The Lord President will probably think that is strong language, but I listened to speeches over the wireless and I read speeches in the Press which could only have been uttered by people full of political dishonesty. We used to say at school that cheats never prosper, and the cheating and the lying that went on at that General Election is now coming home to roost. I have seen a good many things happen in my lifetime and I am old-fashioned enough to believe that any thing founded on a lie is bound to fall to the ground. This Government is founded on lies and half-truths. It would not be where it is to-day but for that, and there is not a man or woman in the House who does not know it. There is no question of preserving national unity. You cannot preserve something that does not exist and has not existed. You will say that what I have said is exaggerated and untrue, but listen to Viscount Snowden:
The Tory party would not be morally entitled to claim a Mandate to carry out a general system of Protection in the new Parliament.
Now why do you not cheer? [An HON. MEMBER: "Hear, hear!"] The bleating
of the sheep does not count. The Home Secretary said something:
If some section of the House of Commons were to break up national unity and insist on party policy"—
certain things would happen. I wonder whether he believes that now. But that is what helped to get you back to Parliament. You fooled the Liberal Free Traders by this sort of guff, which is only guff. What are both sides now trying to do? The laudatory speeches last Thursday and the family celebration of the triumph at long last, after 30 years of struggle, of the policy set up by Joseph Chamberlain and adopted by the Tory party, prove that the Tory policy is triumphant. I hope hon. and right hon. Gentlemen will not be afraid to cheer sentiments that they agree with. It would be useless to argue as to what the vast majority of Tory Members promised their constituents. There can be no question that probably the overwhelming majority of them—I am excepting the Liberals—promised tariffs of some sort as a cure for unemployment, trade depression, trade balance and balancing the Budget, but the Prime Minister and his colleagues did no such thing and especially the so-called Liberal Free Traders, who were going to hold the fort, and men like Viscount Snowden took the other line. It was also promised by the Prime Minister that the Government was to be composed of—
men who may not see eye to eye on the ordinary political questions that divide us in normal times"—
I should like to know if tariffs and free trade is an ordinary question that divides you in normal times—
but are united heart and soul in finding the best way to overcome present troubles.
Now here they are, not united in finding a way out but hopelessly divided on what the majority of the House considers the most vital question of the day. No-one will deny that the majority in this House, and the majority of the Cabinet, consider this question of Tariff Reform the most vital in regard to trade. The Lord President declared that the result was no party victory, until last Thursday,
but an emphatic declaration by the people as a whole in favour of national co-operation in order to restore the fortunes of our country.
The Minister of Education believes that it will ruin the fortunes of the country. The Home Secretary has told us that it will do that. I cannot find words to describe what I cannot but think the humbug and chicanery of the position in which Parliament finds itself. I do not believe there is a single person who gives two thoughts to this question who will not agree that no greater attempt has ever been made to befog and humbug the nation.
The Government on Thursday put up three of their spokesmen. The first was the Chancellor, who made a very able and lucid speech and argued that only the policy of Protection could save the nation. He was followed by the Home Secretary, equally lucid and equally convincing, who informed the nation that, if the policy set forth by the Chancellor was carried, not prosperity but ruin would descend upon us. As I listened to him I thought that, from the point of view of capitalist business, there was no answer to it. Later we had a speech from the Financial Secretary to the Treasury who in turn made mincemeat of the Home Secretary. Now we are told that in the sacred name of national unity these men must always play the game of "Let us pretend," and that on all other questions they are united—we do not know that at all—and that, because they may or may not be united on some other questions, they must remain the rulers of the country and break the constitutional position that they believe in. The Prime Minister called it common sense. I call it common nonsense. The Home Secretary says that if he and other Ministers resign, the Government will have been deprived in a large measure of its claim to the title of "National." It cannot be robbed of that title because never, by any stretch of imagination could it possess that title. Even if we conceded that it was a. National Government because it represents Liberals and Tories, I should declare that as between the Liberal party and the Conservative party there never can be, and never will be, any unity on the question of Free Trade and tariffs. It is a major issue of policy and one upon which there is no unity either in theory or action.
Someone the other night mentioned the case of the War, and said that men united then in a Coalition. It is true that men united in order to win the War. Their
goal was the same and it must be evident to everybody that when Mr. Asquith was put out of office by some of his following and the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Carnarvon Boroughs (Mr. Lloyd George) was put in his place with the powers almost of a dictator, it was done because men at the head of affairs believed that the policy and method which the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Carnarvon Boroughs intended to pursue for winning the War were more likely to serve the nation better than those of Mr. Asquith. There you have a clear cleavage of method. The Government, in this case—which the Prime Minister tells us is similar—people like ourselves, and, I hope, everybody in the country, want to produce peace and prosperity, and yet it is upon the means to attain that end—that is the point which I want to drive home—which the Government say they were elected to secure, that the Home Secretary and others disagree. These men say that the Government's policy will intensify our evil plight, and that also is the position of myself and my friends.
We disagree fundamentally with the major policy of the Government. We repudiate their claim to represent the nation, and we say to the nations of the world—for it is necessary to know it—that when we Socialists come to power, as come to power we most certainly shall —[Interruption.] Yes, in my time!—we shall pursue a policy of expanding trade and industry, both with our Dominions and Colonies, and with the whole world. We are determined by every means in our power to destroy the fiction that in these fiscal matters the Government represents the nation. It represents Toryism and is engaged in imposing a full-blooded Tory policy upon the nation. I emphasise the fact that we are fighting to the best of our power against the Government, the reason being that 6,500,000 voters stand solidly with us, and other thousands are joining us daily. We know that private capitalism and not Socialism has been on its trial. We know that private capitalism is, as a means of supplying the millions of men and women in all parts of the world with a means of earning their daily bread, whether living under Free Trade or Protection, played out. The restrictions which are being imposed will not assist
the masses in their efforts to raise their standard of life. We are confident that only by an expansion of consumption can the world be saved.
We are certain that there is only one way to restore peace and harmony throughout our land and throughout the world. The world is not suffering from under-production or because it cannot produce; everywhere you go there is too much. You cut down the production of tin, you cut down the production of iron and steel, you cut down the production of wool. You cut down the production of wheat, which they burn out there in Argentina. They burn coffee in Brazil, they destroy cotton before it is grown, and everywhere in the world man's power to produce is overwhelming. All that is needed is to put the world right in order that abundance may be brought to the masses. It is that for which we stand, and it is because we stand for that, and because we know that economic nationalism must lead, not only to economic ruin, but probably to war—because we know that the putting up of more tariff walls produces discontent and bitterness between nations—that we shall fight as hard as we can, whether the Liberal party help us or not, and to the best of our ability, against this disastrous policy.
We believe that the day has come when in our own interests there must be co-operation in the production of goods for the service of the nation. We believe that international—[An HON. MEMBER: "It is a Vote of Censure!"] I shall certainly say all I intend to say. We maintain that not only is national co-operation needed, but international cooperation. The capitalists of the world co-operate nationally for their private interests. The capitalists of the world form great combinations—combinations of Germans, Italians, French and of English on one side, and on the other the people of the same nationalities are fighting for power and for the means of creating wealth. We say that the only way out of the present difficulties—the only way that will save mankind—is that labour in this country should be organised for the benefit of the masses; that great private interests should be swept away. We say further that the money and credit systems of the world, instead of being used to hold up and to choke up commodities, have to be
loosened in order that goods may be brought to the service of mankind. It is for those reasons and many others, which the House will hear many times during these Debates, that I move the Motion in my name.

The LORD PRESIDENT of the COUNCIL (Mr. Baldwin): With the permission of the House, I should like to make a few observations about the Motion which appears upon the Paper. The procedure which the Government have adopted is one which deserves discussion in this House, it is one which calls for explanation, and it is one which, it may be, calls for justification, but I cannot see that it is one which calls for censure; and it is a Vote of Censure to which we have to reply. I have no fault to find with the statement of constitutional doctrine in the early part of the speech of the right hon. Gentleman. I can assure him, or we assure him, if he prefers the phrase, that I am not even going to mention his conscience or that of anyone else. I can sympathise with him as to what he said about the secrets of a Cabinet, and I would remind him, if it be any consolation to him, that he will find a passage in the last volume of Lord Malmesbury's Diaries written in 1807 in which he says, that nobody is to be trusted, that everybody is leaking, and that the circulation of papers in such a Cabinet as the one he was in was impossible.
This Vote of Censure has been put down, and it is a matter of vital importance that the House should examine it thoroughly and carefully, that reasons should be given for the procedure that has been followed, and that the House should come to a decision upon it. The first thing that strikes me is the contrast between the two Motions which are on the Paper, both emanating from hon. Members who together have long formed a part of that great Labour party, though the names to the second Motion are those of hon. Members, who, perhaps, at the moment, are pursuing a more independent course. It will be obvious to the House that the second Motion commends the Government for what the first Motion condemns them; it will be equally obvious that we are commended in the second Motion for giving up that secrecy and irresponsibility which is the very foundation upon which the Government
of Moscow rests, which is a very curious conclusion having regard to the quarter whence it comes—an irresponsibility which is only shared between Moscow and certain of the organs of Fleet Street.
But with regard to the Motion, I welcome that position because there were times in 1926 when I doubted whether the direction of the strict constitutional principle in that period was as strong and as decisive as I observe it to be to-day. And that I am specially glad to see, because, just as the right hon. Gentleman reads the speeches of my friends, so I read the speeches of his friends; I see that the hon. and learned Member for East Bristol (Sir S. Cripps) was speaking at the end of last week. Although he is going to support this Motion, yet I see that he too is coming along. He would abolish the powers of his own father. That policy has two merits. It falls in with the sentiment of the present age; is quite unoriginal and has been shared by the children of every generation since the son of man trod upon this earth.
The Motion says that the Government have no united policy. Let us look at the result of the Divisions to-night and tomorrow! The Motions in support of the Government will be carried by larger majorities than have ever been seen in the House before on matters of similar importance. But in studying this Motion we have to devote our minds to the meaning of the word "Constitution," and how far we are deviating in the course we are taking from what is constitutional. I had the pleasure of hearing an impromptu speech by my right hon. Friend the Member for West Birmingham (Sir A. Chamberlain) about a week ago, and he said, in the course of that delightful speech, that "unconstitutional" was a term that you applied in politics to the other fellow when he did something that you did not like, just as the other fellow always defended his conduct on the grounds that he was constitutional. Of course, that was said partly in chaff, but there is some truth in it. We want to clear our minds this afternoon, first of all, as to whether we are deviating from the constitutional course, when we have decided what that constitutional course is. The first thing to get clear in our minds is that our Constitution, more than any Constitution in the world, is a living organism. It is largely because it is a living organism
and because of the changes that have occurred in the body of its practice and conduct through the centuries that our people have in so large a degree, and I believe more than any other people, two qualities, rare in themselves and rarer in combination—a profound reverence for the traditions of their country, together with the capacity to tread new paths when the occasion arises.
5.0 p.m.
The historian can tell you probably perfectly clearly what the constitutional practice of this country was at any given period in the past, but it would be very difficult for a living writer to tell you at any given period in his lifetime what the Constitution of the country is in all respects, and for this reason, that at almost any given moment of our lifetime there may be one practice called "Constitutional" which is falling into desuetude and there may be another practice which is creeping into use but which is not yet called "Constitutional." There may be changes on the horizon to be seen only by some man of vision. I was interested to find last night, when I had finished making the notes for my speech, that that very point—I think it is an obvious one—was taken by no less an authority than Walter Bagehot in the preface to the second edition of his work on the Constitution, when he had cause to write of the great changes in constitutional practice which had occurred in the short seven years since the first edition was published. I will not read his words, but I would call attention to the matter in confirmation of the fact that he, at the beginning of that preface, seizes on the points which I have just mentioned.
The very Cabinet system itself which, of course, is the basis of the whole question we are discussing this afternoon, if I may use a broad and general term to cover it, for quite a generation after the first germs of the system appeared in Charles II's reign was denounced as unconstitutional. I think it is necessary to dwell, upon this development in order to clear our minds in regard to the position in which we find ourselves to-day. It is very difficult always to realise how things looked in a past generation. To-day, a very favourite phrase used by Members of Parliament is "legislators." We have all been called "legislators,"
but legislation is an extremely modern function. As recently as the time of Chatham you will find that throughout his Administration practically no important changes were made in the law. You will find in the time of his son, William Pitt, that he never thought of resigning office if legislation introduced by his Government into Parliament failed to pass. Was his position at that time constitutional? These are difficult questions to answer. I would ask the House for one moment to contrast the position of William Pitt with that of Sir Henry Campbell-Bannerman on the Cordite Vote in the House of Commons, which is in the memory of many of us.
Sir Henry Maine—I do not know whether anyone reads him now—who always had a very vivid way of painting a picture, showed in very few words the position of the British Government and the British Cabinet for about a third of the eighteenth century. George I and George II cared a great deal about Hanover and being Kings of Hanover, and much less about England and being Kings of England. So there was a tacit understanding between the Whig aristocracy and these two Monarchs that the Whig aristocracy should concern itself with England, and the Kings should concern themselves with Hanover. But when George III came, he cared very little for Hanover and a great deal for England. He cared a great deal for being King of England, he hated the Cabinet system and he wanted to be, as King of England, the dictator of English policy. He refused to submit to the Cabinet. Was his position constitutional at that time or not? A very difficult question to answer. Up to that point you have innumerable instances of Ministers both voting and speaking against the Measures and policy of their own Government. The success of those votes and those speeches depended largely upon the character of the man who was at the top. It was an easier thing to speak against Newcastle than it had been to speak against Walpole. It was done, and done repeatedly, up to North's time.
As to the position of the Prime Minister, it is only within the time and the memories of those sitting here that the Prime Minister's place has appeared in the official precedence of this country. When did the Prime Minister's position
become constitutional? That is not an easy question to answer. The real struggle began in the reign of George III. The whole struggle of the eighteenth century was the struggle between the King and the Ministers. Two points of view were held. One point of view was that each Minister, as a servant of the Crown, was responsible for his own Department, with little or no reference to his colleagues. The second view was that Ministers were a homogeneous body, with one Minister to direct and give unity. The King, of course, favoured the first view, because by that means, and that means alone, he could control the policy of this country. The struggle went on for nearly a generation, and the King lost. Probably the event that marked the end of that long constitutional struggle was the dismissal of Thurlow, the last Minister to claim that he had a right to the King's ear as Lord Chancellor and Keeper of the King's Conscience. It was not the mere fact of having conversation with the Monarch that mattered, but the fact that Ministers could discuss with him behind the back of their own leader, and if the King happened to be an extraordinarily able politician he could split any British Government into fragments at any time. So there was a, very great principle at the back of that struggle.
It. was Pitt who ultimately made responsible Ministers the true source of power, and formed the system of government which has lasted practically until the present time. We owe to the statesmen of that period a very great debt, consciously or unconsciously, as that struggle went on. It is inconceivable to-day that the Monarch could play the party game that was played in those days. The Monarch to-day plays a far greater game, if I may use the word, than did the Monarch in King George III's time. It is true that the Crown has been shorn of the power of initiating policy, but it has gained this, that throughout the whole of the British Empire, through all the races of the peoples who compose that great agglomeration, he is our King; he is every man's King as he is ours. Going back to George III's time, the peril of the country through the great French War caused the struggle between the Crown and the Ministers to cease, and collective responsibility became the rule. It had grown—and this is a point to which I would call the attention of
the House—with the growth of parties. It was not necessary to the formation of party itself that it came in, but it came in to fight the party of the King's friends. That was how the battle went on, first as against the King's friends and then to maintain the position of the Government in Parliament. That has been the fact ever since. As party government grew and strengthened in this country, so that rule became essential for the maintenance of party government. Party discipline is necessary to party survival. It is not always put as crudely as that in this House, but it is put as crudely as that by Professor Lowell, of Harvard University. One could expect, perhaps, the intelligent observer from overseas to lay his finger on that point in dealing with English Constitutional matters.
To-day, whatever the right hon. Gentleman may say, we have a National Government. In other words, it is not the Government of one party. It is a Government consisting of representatives of the three parties. [HON. MEMBERS: "No!"] Secondly, if we look for a moment at the enormous majority which supports the Government, it is perfectly true to say of many of them that we should not have had the pleasure of their company here if they had not stood as supporting a National Government. Therefore, the great principle for which the fight for a century and more went on is not at stake here. The fate of no party is at stake in making a fresh precedent for a National Government. Had the precedent been made for a party Government, it would have been quite new, and it would have been absolutely dangerous for that party.
Domestically the tariff issue is one of great importance. Internationally for the Government the world problems are infinitely more difficult, and, whatever the right hon. Gentleman may say, we believe that it would have been a grave matter for the world at large if, within a few months of the inauguration of this Government, there had been a secession of any section of its Members. It is very interesting that all the dissentient voices in this matter come from those who would like to see the Government split. You ask, is what we are doing constitutional? I remember very well—and it shows how at times questions are asked, and at other times silence is maintained
—after the General Election of 1929 having a discussion with many of my friends as to whether we should resign at once or meet Parliament. Some of my friends, perhaps with greater knowledge of the constitution than I, took the view that the constitutional position was to meet Parliament and accept our dismissal by Parliament. I took the view, that whatever had been the constitutional position, under universal suffrage the situation had altered; that the people of this country had shown plainly that whether they wanted hon. Members opposite or not, they certainly did not want me, and I was going to get out as soon as I could. My colleagues agreed with me, but I do not remember right hon. Gentlemen opposite asking me whether I behaved constitutionally. They were getting into our places before we had time to move.
Is our action constitutional? Who can say what is constitutional in the conduct of a national Government? It is a precedent, an experiment, a new practice, to meet a new emergency, a, new condition of things, and we have collective responsibility for the departure from collective action. Whatever some ardent politicians may think, it is approved by the broad common sense of the man-in-the-street. The success or failure of this experiment will depend on one thing only, and that is the spirit in which it is conducted. I have every hope, I have every desire, that that spirit—I know the taunts which will be levelled at us—will be found equal to the task, that this experiment may be so conducted that it may prove successful, and that the judgment of future generations will be that the House of Commons by the vote to-night took a step of wisdom and common sense.

Mr. COCKS: The Lord President of the Council has made a very interesting speech on the constitutional issue. He suggested that our Constitution, as we know it, is an active living principle, and that this experiment of a. National Government is the result of the ordered development of our Constitution. At the same time another part of his speech was an argument against that position. He showed that what the Government are proposing to do now is to go back to the primitive state of things from which our Constitution has developed and evolved.
It has been suggested that in putting down this Vote of Censure and bringing up the constitutional issue we are guilty of an act of constitutional pedantry, that we are mediaevalists, that our outlook is out of date. It is suggested, because we are supporting those high constitutional principles, of which it has been said that Edmund Burke loved with the passion of a lover for his mistress, that we are proving ourselves old-fashioned and out of date and that when the time comes we shall be scorned and rejected by the rising generation who are being educated at Hollywood, and who, because they prefer discord to harmony in their music, are likely to prefer discord to harmony in their methods of government.
That is not the case. We hold that the principles of our Constitution do not depend for their validity on ancient parchments or musty manuscripts. As far as they are founded on tradition and precedent they represent on the whole the accumulated wisdom of generations of law-givers and legislators. But, apart from that, their actual virtue does not depend on the fact that they are based upon tradition, but on whether they appeal to the common sense of the people of the present day. Unless our constitutional principles appeal to the common sense of the people there is no virtue in them. I have yet to find a single person outside this House whose common sense does not say to him, as it has to past generations, that in matters of government unity is strength and disunity means weakness and defeat. Among my acquaintances, whether they are Conservative, Liberal or Labour, I have yet to find a person who does not say that the Government ought to come before the country with a united policy, and that if there are members who disagree with policy the view of the average person is that they should remain silent or resign. The Lord President of the Council has said that the Government have a united policy. He said: "Look at our majority to-night and to-morrow night." May I remind him that in the book from which he has just quoted Walter Bagehot gives an anecdote of one Cabinet Minister who said to another Cabinet Minister: "We have a case we cannot defend; we must apply our majority to it." That is not an unusual practice, and proves quite clearly that the possession of a majority
does not necessarily show that the Government have a united policy.
This doctrine of Cabinet irresponsibility is not new; there is nothing novel in it. It has all been said before and refuted before. It was maintained by Lord Bolingbroke and denounced by Edmund Burke. The Government are going back 200 years to the times of Henry St. John Viscount Bolingbroke who speaks to-day through the mouth of the present Prime Minister. Lord Bolingbroke is one of the favourite writers and philosophers of the present Prime Minister. He has always had a great admiration for the work and career of that disappointed and unsuccessful politician. When this question arose I refreshed my memory of the works of Lord Bolingbroke. I went over some of his essays and writings, and I found, as I should have supposed, seeing he is a favourite of the Prime Minister, that they were extremely rhetorical and extremely vague, in fact, as described by Voltaire they were "leaves without fruit." Reading through Bolingbroke's "Dissertation on Parties" I found it difficult, after reading page after page of rhetorical expressions, to select anything in the way of an apt and concise quotation, but it was quite clear, reading through that work, that Lord Bolingbroke wanted to destroy the Whig and Tory parties and to bring them unitedly into a National party. Lord Bolingbroke said:
It is time that all who desire to be esteemed good men…should join their efforts to heal our national divisions and to change the narrow spirit of party into a diffusive spirit of public benevolence.
Lord Bolingbroke's idea was that the two great parties should unite, and anyone who opposed it was considered to be animated by the narrow spirit of faction and personal hate. He wanted this new party to revolve around the figure of the Patriot King. The parallel is quite complete. The Prime Minister tried, first of all, to destroy the Labour party, but did not succeed. He is now trying to destroy the Liberal party, and I am not sure whether he is not trying to destroy the Conservative party as well. He is forming a new National party, to centre around, not the figure of a "patriot King," but around the figure of the indispensable Prime Minister. We were
told that one of the reasons why this experiment is being tried, and why the Home Secretary is allowed to make speeches such as he made in this House last week and such as he made at Southport and Manchester, is that if the Liberal Members of the Cabinet withdrew that would embarrass the Prime Minister; that it would embarrass the Prime Minister to be left alone with merely Tory colleagues. I am not sure whether it would not cause more embarrassment to the Tory colleagues if they were left with the former Socialist Prime Minister to lead them without any Liberals to keep up the pretence that it is a National Government. But as far as the Prime Minister personally is concerned I do not think he would be embarrassed in the slightest. He is where he wanted to be and I think he would say, in the language of Bolingbroke—
I am in my own farm, and here I shoot strong and tenacious roots … and neither my enemies nor my friends will find it an easy matter to transplant me again.
But, anyhow, the position seems to be as stated, that the Prime Minister must not be embarrassed, that the Home Secretary is to be allowed a free hand in order that they may carry out the policy laid down by the Prime Minister in a sublime phrase.
Differ as we may, the Cabinet is more determined than ever to face our national problems as a united body.
5.30 p.m.
Therefore it has been decided to embark on an experiment which the Prime Minister says will require very delicate handling in its working. We had a very fine example of the delicate handling in the speech of the Home Secretary in this House last week. I would congratulate the right hon. Gentleman on that speech, even though it was a speech which the "Observer" said seemed to be designed expressly to cause as much damage to the Government as possible. It was a devastating speech. It might almost have been made by an avowed opponent of the Government seeking to destroy it. It was a speech in which he raked the Government fore and aft. He hit them over and over again between wind and water. He showed very clearly, speaking as a member of the Cabinet, that a 10 per cent. tariff will do nothing to redress the balance of trade. He showed that it was not a measure to deal with the pre-
sent emergency; that it was not an emergency Measure, but that it meant and implied a permanent change-over in our fiscal system from Free Trade to Protection. He showed that, first of all, by taxing food the Government would increase the cost of living, and secondly, that by taxing raw materials they would increase the cost of manufacture in this country, and thus hamper our export trade, which it is the duty surely of the Government to promote.
He showed that as a result of the Government's policy the poor and the unemployed will have to pay more for their milk, their bread, their sugar and for a commodity known as margarine. He showed that not only would the unemployed and the poor be pressed more deeply into the mire, but he said that if it was imposed as a means of getting revenue by which to reduce taxation on the well-to-do a most formidable controversy would arise. I take it, therefore, that if the Chancellor of the Exchequer is going to use the revenue tariff for the purpose of lightening the Income Tax instead of restoring the cuts in the unemployment benefit and in the smaller range of salaries and wages, the Home Secretary intends to fight the proposal inside and outside the Cabinet, in this House and in the country, and to use all his influence as a Cabinet Minister to discredit and destroy such a policy. I shall look forward to action of that sort with eager anticipation. I trust that the Home Secretary, if he decides to take that action, will be supported by his colleagues, the Scottish chiefs, one of whom is sitting beside him. I hope even that he will be supported by the Prime Minister, who, I trust, has not altogether forgotten the working people from whom he sprang.
But after having listened to the Home Secretary's able speech I was not at all surprised at the attitude of the Chief Whip, who went down to Rugby on the following day and described the Home Secretary's proposals as "futile and fatuous." If the Chief Whip had only had the nautical experience and vocabulary of his predecessor, the present First Lord, I should tremble for the hearing of the Home Secretary. I am afraid that the Home Secretary has got him
self into a very unfortunate position, a position described by Burke in similar circumstances in this way:
They are delivered up into the hands of those who feel neither respect for their persons nor gratitude for their favours.… thus living in a state of continual uneasiness and ferment.… They are unhappy in their situation yet find it impossible to resign.
The Home Secretary has stated that one of the reasons why he has not withdrawn from the Cabinet is that on the whole the Cabinet are united on other Measures. He mentioned certain matters, including the question of currency. I suppose that the Cabinet are united there because they have no policy whatever on that important matter. But is the Home Secretary sure that the Cabinet are united on all other questions? It seems difficult to reconcile that statement with the speech the right hon. Gentleman made last Thursday. For example, the right hon. Gentleman spoke about the strain on sterling. He said it was due to very complex causes. He said that he regretted that the Government had not taken the advice of experts and economists on the matter. He wished very much that the Government had had an inquiry into the matter. I believe that if he had insisted upon an inquiry he would have received the support of the Prime Minister, who is always ready to grant an inquiry on any matter as long as it delays action. But the Government have decided otherwise. They have not decided to have an inquiry. It seems to me therefore that Cabinet unity on that subject also is imperfect.
Then the Home Secretary put forward certain views of his own, very valuable views, on certain subjects—national planning, reorganisation of industry, Imperial development, and the reconstruction of international trade. He put forward constructive ideas. But they do not voice the principles of a united Cabinet. The Chief Whip said they were "futile and fatuous," which I think was not only extremely unfair but incorrect. Not only is there not a united policy on that matter, but the Home Secretary said that the Government were proceeding from the wrong end, and that their policy was restrictive instead of being constructive. So here is a vast range of subjects upon which there is disunity in the Cabinet. I take it that the Home Secretary will be free, when we come to discuss these questions, to advocate all those ideas
which he adumbrated the other night, even if that entails a conflict of opinion with certain of his colleagues. But what is the Home Secretary going to do now? Is he going to heed the admonition of the right hon. Member for Tamworth (Sir A. Steel-Maitland) who said in effect, "You have spoken once. Let this be enough, and now for ever hold your peace."
Is the Home Secretary going to speak about these matters? Is he not going to take any action in support of his ideas? It may be said quite truly that a speech in this House is in itself action. "The song that nerves a nation's heart," is in itself a deed. Is not the song that nerves a party's heart, even if it is a swan song, equally a deed? So in some ways it may be said that the Home Secretary's speech was action. In any case the right hon. Gentleman has denounced the Government's policy as calamitous. That was what he said at Manchester. He has aroused the Liberal party. The National Liberal Federation is awake. The Young Liberals, however old they may be, are looking to him now as their leader. He is their Henry of Navarre. They are telling their colleagues that they must follow where his white plume wavers in the van. Has the right hon. Gentleman drawn his sword merely to sheath it again? Surely he is not going to do that. Surely he is not going to denounce the Government's policy and take no action in the country. Are he and his friends going to be merely pole squatters on the subject? Does he mean to wash his hands like Pontius Pilate and let the business proceed without further opposition to the execution though the destruction of our trade and prosperity, as he says, will follow?
I feel sure that the Home Secretary will not do anything of that sort. Surely he will use his influence in the Cabinet and the country to arouse the people of this country, to arouse the Liberals of the country. Already action has been taken. The dry bones are moving in the valley. Life has been breathed into them, apparently, by the right hon. Gentleman. I hope that we shall now see him embarking on a raging and tearing campaign up and down the country, as Mr. Joseph Chamberlain did nearly 29
years ago, to rouse the Liberals out of their tomb, and, by agitation and in every way, to try to do something to stop the Government from pursuing a course which, he himself says, is perilous and calamitous. Anyhow, our task is clear. A Cabinet so divided cannot stand for long. The position reminds me of something which Mr. Disraeli once said about Coalitions. It is not the familiar quotation but another one. He was asked how long a certain Coalition Government would last and his reply was:
It will come to an end when every member of it has his public character irretrievably injured.
That is what will happen to this Government. We repudiate its claim to be a National Government. We are confident that when it is discredited, as all Coalition Governments are discredited, the country will turn to the party which I represent, which will put before the country a united policy of rapid, decisive, and drastic action.

Mr. ANSTRUTHER-GRAY: In rising to address it for the first time, I do so with a very full sense of the dignity of the House in which it is now my privilege to sit. Let me say right away that I shall not presume to take more than a few moments of the time of the House. The Socialist Vote of Censure has been moved with the object of drawing attention to an alleged breach of Parliamentary principle. It is not my business to inquire whether this action of the Government in agreeing to differ is or is not without precedent. There are young men in this House and there are people throughout the country who care very little for precedent. I say that in no spirit of disrespect for my elders and betters, and in no spirit of disrespect for our predecessors, but simply because the question of precedent in this matter is neither here nor there. The Government were returned, as has been pointed out, to deal with an emergency which was itself without precedent. As far as I am concerned, strict adherence to precedent was no part of my mandate from the electors, and I submit that adherence to precedent formed no part of the mandate of the National Government.
The National Government were returned to deal with an emergency by any and every means, and the voice of the country, at the General Election and
since the General Election, has been twofold. It has been for action and for unity in action. Action the Government have given us. In this one case, as was foreseen, unity in action has proved to be impossible, but that is not to say that we may not see the Government united after action, and if we get that, then little harsh has been done. I believe that it is the duty of every supporter of the National Government, to whatever party he may belong, to do all he can to preserve the unity of the Government, and, if I may say so without presumption, I believe that to be the duty of the individual members of the Government itself. As far as the criticism of the Socialist party goes, perhaps I may be allowed to say that in this case it is not to be taken too seriously. It is the duty of the Opposition to avail themselves of every opportunity to try to pour discredit on the Government, but in this case I do not think that the Opposition have any strong feeling in the country at their backs. If they claim to speak with the voice of the country then I submit that while they may speak with the voice of those people, with whom the National Government never was and never will be a favourite, yet I do not believe that they can claim to speak with the voice of the country as a whole.
To my mind the dangerous criticism is that which comes from our own ranks. There are certain people like the hon. and gallant Member for Wallasey (Lieut.-Colonel Moore-Brabazon) who hold very strong views on certain matters just as there are strong partisans on the other side and I must admit that it is very hard not to be carried away by the criticisms which are sometimes offered. It is idle to pretend that the spectacle of one member of the Cabinet doing his best to tear to pieces the policy put forward by his colleagues was pleasing to any one of us, and there is the greatest temptation to say in the words of a great statesman on this very tariff question:
If they cannot come with us, why then we must leave them behind.
But I submit that we must not allow ourselves to be carried away by feelings such as those. The need for a National Government is as great to-day as it was in October last. All of us who supported it at that time declared it to be essential
and the country followed our lead. He would be a bold man who would lightly set aside the wishes of the vast majority of the electorate so definitely expressed less than four months ago.

Mr. BUCHANAN: In rising to speak on this Motion, I wish to express my regret that you, Mr. Speaker, have not been able to see your way to call the Amendment which stands in the name of some of my hon. Friends and myself. Before dealing with the Motion, however, I follow the usual custom of this House in congratulating the hon. Member for North Lanarkshire (Mr. AnstrutherGray) on his maiden speech. I do so rather diffidently because he defeated one of the very few supporters of my party in this House. I would rather that this opportunity had not fallen to me—one need not be hypocritical in these matters—but as the hon. Member got here in spite of me, may I say now that he is here that at least my displeasure is modified by realising that that goad colleague and comrade of mine whom he defeated was not defeated by an inferior. His contribution to this Debate was, in style and eloquence, one which augurs well for his future. But may I add one point against him? He is young and I am not too old. I implore him not to become an old man too soon. The way of youth ought to be the way of risk. The old can afford to be complacent. Youth can never afford to be complacent. I ask him, in these days, to take risks; and, to me, the risky way is not the way disclosed in his speech, namely, that of a close and rigid adherence to the Government of which he is a follower.
This Motion seeks to condemn the Government for its lack of unity. Let me be quite frank. In my heart of hearts I could not condemn any Government merely on the ground that it is not united. There was one part of the speech of the hon. Gentleman the Member for Bow and Bromley (Mr. Lansbury) with which I agreed, and I wish he would make a start in circles in which he has immense power for good, in carrying that part of his speech into effect. He said it would be for the good of the country if the Cabinet issued a synopsis, or resume, or minute, of its proceedings after each meeting. He expressed the desire that
that should be done, so that those, not in the Cabinet, might have some intelligent idea of what was happening. I am in full accord with that desire and I ask the hon. Gentleman to, show an example. Can he not get the Labour party in the House to issue to constituent bodies, minutes of the proceedings of the party meetings? Can he not get the Labour party executive, the Cabinet of the Labour party, after each meeting to issue to its constituents, who pay the piper, a minute of the proceedings Can he not get the Trades Union Congress to issue to its constituent elements a minute of its proceedings? Or are we to take it that in his scheme, this Cabinet is different from the semi-Cabinets which dominate the Labour movement?
I welcome this procedure in that it is a break with the past in this respect, and that it ends much of the hyprocrisy which was connected with Cabinets in the past. Take the Labour Government as an example. I defy Members sitting on the Labour benches to deny this—that there were Members of the Government meeting in the Cabinet and taking a particular line on certain questions, but it was said, "Do not say that so-and-so is against that in the Cabinet or is in favour of this in the Cabinet." We were not told, "It is someone who is doing this or someone else who is forcing that." But if the right had been established of a Cabinet Minister to come to this House and speak and vote as he felt conscientiously, then we should have known who was, and who was not, in favour of certain policies within the Cabinet.
This break with the past is more important for the Labour party than for any other party in the State. The Labour Cabinet and the Labour party differ from other parties in this respect. The Labour party is a comparatively poor party. The great bulk of its Members depend on this House for their livelihood, and the man who is going to take action which involves his resignation—I do it for I am no better and no worse than others—has to think of the economic consequences. A man who is in the Cabinet and whose income from that position is his only income, his only method of attaining decency and comfort for his wife and family, must, if resignation is involved, think of his future as a man. That applies to the Labour party. Hon.
Members opposite can resign with no hardship to those for whom they care. With Members of the Labour party it is different. I say, therefore, that, from the point of view of the Labour movement, this precedent is sound because it allows the poor man in the Cabinet of the future, the man without a penny of private income, to follow his conscience and not to follow the browbeating of high finance and the dictates of his own poverty. Therefore, I say that, far from being attacked by the Labour movement, it ought to be welcomed as a precedent eagerly sought for and much desired. It is said by critics of the Government that the Cabinet is not united, but I have never known a more united Cabinet than this. I say that frankly and openly. The Leader of the Opposition said that this was an issue as between tariffs and Free Trade. He also said—and I agree with him—that the Socialist answer was that fundamentally, from the point of view of the great mass of the common people, that issue was not of Socialist concern. It was in effect a quarrel as to Free Trade and tariffs between two rival groups of what I term the master class in society. The free trader in a certain manufacturing circle is anxious to get raw materials and products cheaply and in abundance. You can see it in the steel trade. Steel manufacturers are anxious for tariffs, and certain other people in the trade are demanding Free Trade. It is the old quarrel between the shopkeeping community and the manufacturing community, and the Socialist answer has always been that it is no part of our duty to intervene in that quarrel, but that our part is to point the Socialist way.
6.0 p.m.
What we have had to-day is merely a quarrel between two sections of the Cabinet as to which side of the employing or master class they will serve. Take that away; take the quarrels between the master class away, and get to what is real policy, get to the everyday work of the Cabinet, and never was there a more solid, hard-faced set of men than those that occupy the Government Bench to-day. Take any great issue you like. Take India. Here is the Indian problem before us now. There are threatenings every day, and every form of repression is being practised—the Cabinet united, even the Liberals, who
used to be the defenders of individual liberty. In the old days of Bannerman, they would never have stood for the present happenings in India, but they are united now; they are acting for their class. Take unemployment insurance, the means test, transitional benefit. The working class must be degraded and reduced, and those who form the employing class must be relieved of financial responsibility in every way. What matter the poor? We are a class Government. Never was there a Cabinet more united and determined in lowering the standard of life than this Cabinet. Take the Far East—united again.
Take the Home Secretary's statement to-day on Dartmoor. They must rigidly punish the criminal, they must deal with him properly, and it must be done in secrecy—the Cabinet united. On every issue where the interests of the working class and the common people are at stake, the Government are unalterably united. When the master class differ, when those who rule us and exploit us differ, then there is liberty in abundance each time.

The SECRETARY of STATE for the HOME DEPARTMENT (Sir Herbert Samuel): I said just the opposite with regard to Dartmoor.

Mr. BUCHANAN: I ask any Conservative or any Liberal in this House whether, if it had been a question affecting any section of the population other than convicts, they would ever have allowed a report to go out without knowing the nature of the evidence behind the report. How can a man discuss a report, how can you do anything in the nature of coming to an intelligent conclusion, without the evidence Who were the convicts brought before the Commission? What kind of evidence did they get out?

Sir H. SAMUEL: It was not a Commission to punish the convicts.

Mr. BUCHANAN: But who were the convicts asked to give evidence to the Commission Were they certain picked convicts?

Mr. SPEAKER: We must not be led into a discussion on Dartmoor.

Mr. BUCHANAN: I merely say that on that matter the Government are absolutely united. On the general issue; may
I say that no one wants to continue the farce of the Labour Government? I have heard talk about lies from one side to the other, but may I say to my Labour colleagues, of whose party I am not likely ever again to be a Member, Do they think, or do any of us think, in these matters that we have a monopoly of honesty? I read in a publication of the Socialist party, or at least the Labour party, this week deliberate lies. I see that an ex-Cabinet Minister said about the Anomalies Act—and I challenge him for saying it—that it was the other Government that introduced the regulations, that did this and did that. For my part, when the Labour party is able to clear itself of the charge, then it will be time for it to throw stones at other people.
On this issue, it may be said, as the right hon. Member for Bow and Bromley said, that the Rome Secretary is not showing courage. I am not going to be the judge as to whether or not he is showing courage. Time will show, and nobody can decide that to-day, but at least he showed courage or this amount of initiative on a matter about which, speaking for his section of the community, he felt sore. He spoke on it. When the Labour Government was in office and men's wages and unemployment benefit were being attacked by it, members of the Labour Government were all united; at least we never had one with the courage to dissent from that Government.
As far as tariffs and this quarrel are concerned, I cannot see where the Labour party can have any quarrel there. They may have a quarrel about unity, but not about tariffs. So far as I can read the proposals of the Government, they are much the same as Mr. Arthur Henderson favoured—a 10 per cent. tariff throughout. [An HON. MEMBER "No!"] Oh, yes. It may be denied that this was the kind of thing we were going to get, and it may be said that Mr. Henderson did not favour a 10 per cent. tariff, but I attended a meeting where he did. I attended a meeting at Transport House where he said that, in the emergency, he would accept a 10 per cent. tariff. [An HON. MEMBER: "Rather than—!"] Yes, rather than a cut in unemployment benefit. There is no question of principle in it. The inference was that it was the only way to avoid a cut in unemploy-
ment benefit, that the rich could not be attacked, that those who owned land could not be attacked, and he favoured a 10 per cent. tariff rather than a cut in unemployment benefit. It might be assumed from that that he was not in favour of a 10 per cent. tariff.
My colleagues and I welcome this departure. To us, there have often been departures from the Constitution. The Labour Government, I think rightly, departed from the Constitution when they said they could be defeated often without an election, and it was quite a good thing that they did so depart from the Constitution. The present Government have taken another departure. For our part, we would welcome open meetings of the Cabinet, giving to the public and to the mass of the people everything possible in that connection; and we say that, so far as this Cabinet is concerned, it is merely a petty quarrel, and we hope that this departure from principle will be used by a future Government, in order that those who compose that future Government, the men and the women in it, will do their duty, not by the Cabinet, but by those from whom they derive authority, namely, the working people, and will insist, even when they are defeated in the Cabinet, on coming to this House and stating their views fearlessly and openly.
Anything that tends to dishonesty in politics, anything, for instance, that makes a man say one thing in the Cabinet and then come to this House of Commons and say another thing, anything that makes a man vote in the Cabinet one way and then vote in this House another way—that system may work, but ultimately, from my point of view, it corrupts the system. No man can go on acting dishonestly in a Cabinet and outside without himself becoming corrupt and without the system of which he is a part ultimately being corrupted too. Therefore, we who form a small minority in this House do not disagree with this departure at all. We are opposed to the Government, and we shall vote for the Motion because we think they are a united Government, a brutal Government, a bad Government, shorn of the decencies of mankind in their treatment of the poor. We think that the Government should be swept aside as speedily as possible, and because of that and not for
any other reason, we shall vote for this Motion of Censure.

Sir DONALD MACLEAN: I should like to join in the words of appreciation which were addressed by the hon. Member for Gorbals (Mr. Buchanan) to the hon. Member for Northern Lanarkshire (Mr. Anstruther-Gray) on his first speech in this House. I remember his father very well, as many others of us do, and we can wish him no better career than that he should be a worthy successor, as he certainly will, of a man who was a real public servant and a true Member of this House.
With regard to my hon. Friend who has just sat down, it was a distinct change from his widespread practice of dissonance to hear him for once stating that he is in favour of the attitude of the Government, but he disappointed me when he said that in no circumstances could he find it within the realm of his conscience to support any Government and particularly this one. With regard to the Motion before the House, perhaps the best course for me to adopt would be to recall some of the history which has led up to the present position; I do not mean the constitutional history, but the history of the past few months. The manifesto of the Prime Minister set out very clearly and definitely the non-party attitude which was taken up by the Government of that day when they appealed to the country. I will quote two or three words:
As it is impossible to foresee in the changing conditions of to-day what may arise, no one can set out a programme of detail on which specific pledges can be given.
He went on to say that the Government must therefore be at complete liberty to consider in the fullest manner any proposals, tariff or otherwise, likely to help. That was the manifesto of the Prime Minister, and it arose out of a long discussion which took place in the narrow, small Cabinet of those days. Though some of us held similar positions to those which we now occupy, the actual Cabinet consisted of about 10 members. I would like the House to bear in mind that the agreement which led to the Prime Minister's manifesto was the result of an agreement to differ then. Our agreements to differ are not of immediate origin. The Prime Minister's manifesto
was followed by manifestos from both the Conservative and Liberal parties. The Conservative manifesto made it quite clear that tariffs remained and would remain a part of their political faith and programme. On the other hand, we made it equally clear where we Liberals stood. It is not for me to quote any part of the Conservatives' pronouncement, but it does fall to me to give a. quotation from the Liberal manifesto. After stating that it was imperative, in our view, to balance the Budget and to endeavour to secure a favourable balance of trade, and that we were prepared to take any measures to deal with these emergencies, we went on to say:
We feel bound to declare our view that, whatever emergency measures might be found to be necessary to deal with the immediate situation, freedom of trade is the only permanent basis for our economic prosperity and for the welfare of the Empire and of the world.
That is a clear statement of our position, and we stood by that. Then came the election, and we know the result. It brought forth immediately, as one expected it would, express disclaimers from the Prime Minister and from my right hon. Friend the Leader of the Conservative party who, in the absence of the Prime Minister leads the House with such satisfaction to all parties in it. They expressly disclaimed that that great and sweeping majority in any sense constituted a party victory—[Interruption.] That is a perfectly accurate statement.
My colleagues and I joined the Government on the specific definite basis of the manifesto which we laid before the country and of the manifesto of the Prime Minister. Those of us who accepted the invitation of the Prime Minister to join his Cabinet can, I think, claim that we were not lacking in loyal co-operation in any of the proposals which were laid before the Cabinet and subsequently before the House. Some of these were matters which were extremely distasteful to us, and we accepted them because they constituted part of the policy of dealing with an abnormal situation by emergency Measures. I am no authority on Cabinets, notwithstanding the long experience I have had in this House on the back benches and on both Front benches, and the very happy times I have had in the
Chair assisting former Speakers, but I think I can say that it was a very remarkable achievement to keep Cabinet unity on so vast a range of subjects. That unity did not develop out of ease and compromise, but out of real difficulties, out of great dangers, and not out of safety.
Why is this Debate taking place to-day? It is for the simple reason that the present proposals before the House and the country, in the view of myself and my colleagues, constitute an acceptance of a permanent Protectionist policy; also that it carries with it, at any rate for the time being, a complete reversal of the practice of Free Trade. Some day, I hope and believe, somebody will stand at this Box and propose the wiping away of these duties. You never know. That reversal will come in one of two ways: either by a party that sets itself out definitely to make the reversal; or, what I am sure my Conservative friends would much prefer, by a world recognition of the harm and the disastrous damage wrought by hostile tariffs. There was no alternative for us but that of resignation, and it is no secret to say, as my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary has said, that we did tender our resignations to the Prime Minister.
It is a very proper question to ask what I am doing at this Box. Nobody suggests that we could not be very easily replaced. It is not a suggestion of any of my right hon. Friends, certainly not of my own, that there is any special virtue in us individually which could not be more than amply made up for by those who could take our places. We only say that we are of the average capacity of dullness which usually follows the assumption of Office, varied, as a wit once said by occasional flashes of mediocrity. I have had no experience of Cabinets, but I very much doubt whether anyone in the Government was ever present at more remarkable gatherings than those of the Cabinet, dominated as they are, not with an atmosphere of self seeking on the part of anybody, but of a very earnest desire to seek the public good. We made our response to that—all of us with some knowledge and some with considerable knowledge indeed of Parliamentary life—knowing the difficulties which it has brought and will bring. In those difficulties we shall, quite naturally, bear the greater share
of the burden. The speech of my right hon. Friend the other day was an indication of some of the Parliamentary difficulties with which this experiment will have to contend. I think it is unnecessary for me to say that I stand by his speech.
6.30 p.m.
Let me just say a word or two about the Vote of Censure, and what we think our course of procedure ought to be. The Vote of Censure is devoted to two matters with which my right hon. Friend the Lord President dealt with clarity and force earlier in the Debate. First, there is the point of inability to decide upon a united policy. Does anybody expect that with the developments which have taken place—[Hon. MEMBERS: "We cannot hear a word"]—some such crisis as this was not bound to happen? Then it is stated that this is an unprecedented action on the part of the Government of the day, and on our part in sharing in it. There is no precedent for a solution of this character, for the very good reason that there is no precedent for a situation of this kind. Therefore, I do not look for precedents at all, nor do I intend to lay before the House any juristic arguments of any kind. The special glory of the British Constitution is its flexibility.

Mr. LANSBURY: Hear, hear.

Sir D. MACLEAN: I am glad that view is accepted on the opposite benches.

Mr. J. JONES: And you prove it.

Sir D. MACLEAN: But the success of this flexibility of the Constitution—and here, again, I am sure I shall have the agreement of the right hon. Gentleman opposite—has depended upon this, that on the whole it has been worked and continues to be worked by men of public spirit and a high sense of responsibility in all parts of the House, and it cannot work without it. The checks of an unwritten Constitution such as ours are of the spirit and not of the letter. The checks of a written Constitution are those which are expressed in the Statute which made it, and often prove obstacles rather than aids in dealing successfully with a new and unexpected situation. We have only to look to other countries today to see examples of that state of affairs. In the last few days we have taken a further step, and as younger
Members of the House will, I am certain, live to see, further steps as startling will also be taken in the years to come. That is because the British Constitution is a living organism. The proof of this experiment will lie in its working and in no other way. No speeches will make it work.

Sir WILLIAM DAVISON: They may make it not work.

Sir D. MACLEAN: It will succeed if it is judged in accordance with the immemorial British tradition of judging by results rather than by logic and theory. History has never been made by historians, and the British Constitution has not been constructed by constitutional lawyers, but by its ever-changing practice. If hon. Members look at the Standing Orders of this House they will see that dates are put opposite many of the Standing Orders, and many of them mark a crisis in Parliamentary history which is now an accepted working part of the practice of this House. What is to be our course of procedure?

Mr. J. JONES: Stick to your job, governor.

Sir D. MACLEAN: My colleagues and I are determined that, as far as in us lies, our conduct shall be governed by the same considerations of honour and public responsibility which have led to the creation of this experiment. As to when we should speak and vote on these proposals, in Committee or otherwise, is a matter we must leave for the occasion from time to time to dictate. Clearly it is impossible to lay down hard and fast rules. The exercise of our liberty to speak and vote in this House must be decided by our sense of duty, by good sense, and by good feeling. [An HON. MEMBER "Not on principle!"] We shall always bear in Mind, whether the discussions are in the Cabinet or in Parliament, the special responsibilities that attach to the holding of ministerial office. I claim that this experiment has an honourable origin in the Cabinet. Whatever varying views may be held with regard to the opening of the Debate in these matters, it has had an honest beginning. No humbug can long persist in this House. Nothing is gained by subterfuge or concealment.
I entirely agree with many of the sentiments of the hon. Member for Gorbals. The best service we can render to the House and to the country is, as far as possible, to make frank statements showing what the position really is. I, of course, endorse in the fullest manner the statement made by my right hon. Friend the Lord President of the Council. The success or failure of this experiment depends entirely on the spirit in which it is worked. There is a saying, the exact terms of which I do not remember, but which I will paraphrase thus: "There is more sense in the House of Commons than in anybody in it." Those of us who have had long experience of this great Assembly—after all, the greatest deliberative Assembly the world has ever known—know that underlying all the tumult and the shouting of our Debates there is a sense in this House itself of which Disraeli, in one of his great phrases, said there is a membership of this House which is not related of those who happen for the time being to be in it, but consists of those silent, long past,
Members who are independent of the caprice of constituencies or the flight of time.
It is that sense of what is fair and just which at the bottom I believe actuates all parties in this House, and that spirit and that attitude of mind alone will be the final arbiter of whether this experiment fails or succeeds.

Mr. DEVLIN: I rise with considerable hesitation to intervene in this Debate, and with all the greater hesitation, because I am following my right hon. Friend the President of the Board of Education. I would like to say this by way of preliminary and perhaps I may justify myself by saying that most of the speeches to-day have not been justifications but preambles. My preamble is this: that I should be the very last person, either in this House or out of it, to attribute any mean or sordid motive to any public conduct of the right hon. Gentleman who has just sat down. I have known him in the House of Commons for nearly 30 years, and the one thing about him that has always struck me has been his patient courage and his transparent honesty. Never was the manifestation of those characteristics seen more clearly than when the first Coalition Government
was formed and he declined to join it. That was really a National Government, as far as one can apply the term. It was a Government brought into existence to face one of the most terrible emergencies this Empire had ever known. If there was a time when the sacrifice of personal and individual views to the public good should have inspired one's conduct it was on that occasion, but the right hon. Gentleman, for reasons which commended themselves to him, and commended themselves to me, declined to join that Coalition, and for years led the Opposition in this House with an infinite patience, skill, and self-sacrifice.
The Leader of the House opened his speech to-day with a series of constitutional observations which have no bearing whatever on the situation. He said that this is a National Government. I decline to accept that description of this Government. Moreover, I think it is a dishonest description of the situation. A National Government is a Government containing various elements—a homogeneous aggregation of men in the Cabinet mirroring the opinion of the elements in the different parties. That is what I conceive to be a National Government. This Government is not a National Government in that sense; it is composed mostly of the members of the Tory party who ought to be the Government in this Parliament. I am aware that there are also in the Government a number of very distinguished Liberals, and two or three people called National Labour, but without meaning anything offensive I think we can rule them out. If it is true that a large combination, consisting of a large party with a few Liberals is a National Government, then the last Government must have been, to a large extent, a National Government and on many occasions no one was a larger contributor to that state of affairs than the Home Secretary who was then quite as active in his propaganda and scientific Parliamentary organisation to keep the Socialists in office as he is passionately anxious now to keep the Tories and the Liberal party in office.
At the last General Election 14,000,000 votes were given for the composite National party and 7,000,000 votes were given for the Labour party. Therefore, there cannot be any reasonableness or
sound argument in calling the present Government a National Government, representing as they do 14,000,000 electors against the representatives of 7,000,000 electors who decline to accept either the present Government estimate of themselves or their policy. The mentality of the country was not justly determined at the last election when you consider the propaganda, the passion, the lying, the misrepresentation and all the forces that operated in that election. We know how the minority suffered and how unfairly they were treated. This is not a National Government, and it has no right to claim to be a National Government. I decline entirely to subscribe to this long recital of constitutional precedents and tradition which is intended to smother the moral of the question among all these musty precedents. I recognise no issue on this question but the issue of right or wrong. What is the situation? No doubt there were many issues at the last election. We had before us the questions of India, Reparations, and Disarmament. I take it that the National Government are agreed upon every question except tariff reform, and therefore there can be no mischief in the members of the Liberal party leaving the Government, because all those questions would be adjusted precisely on the lines which the Liberal Members want them adjusted. The only difference is on tariff reform. I have never worshipped at the altar of Free Trade or tariff reform. On this question, I have always had an open mind, and I agree with the hon. Member who said that national salvation is not to be found on either of those lines.
I do say, however, that the moment of triumph has arrived, and, if the laurels are to be placed on Parliamentary brows, they ought to be placed upon the brows of the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Sparkbrook (Mr. Amery) and the hon. and gallant Baronet the Member for Bournemouth (Sir H. Croft). They are the pioneers of tariff reform, and they have never ceased to carry on the propaganda in favour of it. We now witness this strange situation, that when the purpose and object for which they have worked and laboured for over a quarter of a century is about to be achieved, the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Sparkbrook sits obscurely on the back bench counting as little as I do in the
affairs of this House. Is that fair? To the victors the spoil ought to belong. At the present moment the Free Traders occupy prominent places in the Cabinet, and the real fiscal reformers are prepared to occupy obscure places on the back ministerial benches. I was a Member of this House when the late Mr. Joseph Chamberlain introduced his policy. I listened to his speeches, and as far as tariff reform was concerned they were irresistible appeals, and they convinced me by their sound reason and logic. After that I listened to the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Epping (Mr. Churchill), and he spoke passionately in an opposite sense. Thirty years after that the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Epping declares that he was wrong and that the late Mr. Joseph Chamberlain was right.
Last week the Chancellor of the Exchequer came forward moved by a feeling that at least he has fought out this question, and has ultimately established the great cause of fiscal reform. On that occasion the Chancellor of the Exchequer made a very remarkable speech, and immediately after he sat down the Home Secretary made a speech equally powerful and full of argument. I have been longer in this House than many of the supporters of the Government, and I know that the great bulk of them came to this House filled with definite enthusiasm for the cause of tariff reform. Most of them considered their own judgment inferior, and they came to this House to hear the argument. What did they hear? They heard a remarkable statement made by the Chancellor of the Exchequer to vindicate the policy of 30 years ago, and after that they heard that policy torn to tatters by the Home Secretary. [Hon. MEMBERS: "No!"] Now we are asked what we are to do? I do not wish to attribute anything but the highest motives to the Home Secretary and the other Liberal Members of the Cabinet, but I confess that I could not, in my conscience, remain in a Government in these circumstances, because I think what is now being done is a departure from constitutional tradition, and it is an outrage upon our ideas of honour, because you cannot blind yourselves to the fact that
the one great issue which moves the public mind to-day is the question of fiscal reform.
The Chancellor of the Exchequer says he has introduced fiscal reform in order to save England, while the Home Secretary declares that if this policy of Tariff Reform becomes part of our Imperial policy it means the ruin of England. Who is to lead us on this question? Who are we to believe? I recognise that the situation is a very difficult and delicate one for the Liberal Members of the Cabinet, but to the ordinary observer, with the ordinary cuteness of mind, and to the honest man there is only one course, and that is to leave the Cabinet because it has been openly declared that if they do so nothing will be sacrificed. Are the Liberal Members of the Cabinet not prepared to trust their Tory colleagues on all other questions? If the English people want Tariff Reform, Members of the Cabinet have no right to hold diametrically and fundamentally opposite views and remain in the Cabinet, because, however those Members of the Cabinet may divorce themselves on other questions, they cannot divorce themselves if they remain in the Cabinet from the responsibility for a policy which they decline to accept. Tariff Reformers declare that if their policy is carried out it will ensure the industrial greatness of this country. To the victors belong the spoils. Let us return to healthy politics. This fake, this appearance of national solidarity—was there ever such a picture of union and solidarity? For 30 years I have seen varying changes in this House, and changes in tradition and in constitutional practice. Never did I even dream that the day would come when the Government's policy on the greatest and most vital of all the problems that come before it to be settled would be denounced in vigorous, unmeasured, and in many ways irresistible terms by the most intellectual force, the closest reasoner and the most prominent politician in the Cabinet.
7.0 p.m.
That is all that I desire to say on this question. I am now speaking without any regard to all the issues except one —will the Government be more respected in the country after the performance of
the last two days? Will an impatient public, impatient of Parliament, regard with more popular favour a Parliament of Tariff Reformers cheering the chief protagonist of Free Trade? Will it raise the status and increase the honour of our Parliamentary institutions if we say that there is to be, on the one hand, a vigorous and prolonged intellectual campaign by the leading member of the Government next to the Prime Minister against the policy of the Prime Minister and the Chancellor of the Exchequer? No doubt my right hon. Friend who has just sat down will come along and soothe the situation. The fact remains that the action taken in this regard is a lowering of the dignity and honour of public life. Is a complete departure not from tradition and constitutional practice, for which I have no respect at all, but a sweeping departure from all those principles upon which national respect is secured for Parliamentary institutions and for the honour and purity of our public life. As far as I am concerned, my view has nothing whatever to do with the decisions which have been argued in this House and which will be argued for some time to come. I take this view because I feel that, if we are to preserve this respect for our institutions in face of the suspicions, dangers and difficulties that lie before us, when people are ceasing to believe in parliamentary institutions, the unhappy spectacle, the ugly picture which will he painted in the constituencies and among the thoughtless as well as among the thinking people, must strike a blow at the glory and strength of our parliamentary institutions. It must be opposed by all who believe that in the respect which the common people have for this great Parliament alone lies our future strength, greatness and power

7.0 p.m.

Earl WINTERTON: Those Members of this assembly who have been in this House only for a short. time or for a few Parliaments must sometimes wonder what it is that makes those of us, like my hon. Friend who has just sat clown, and who has been engaged in politics for over a quarter of a century, return to this House Parliament after Parliament and appear to be absorbed in its procedure. The House of Commons is attractive to me not only when it deals with some great moral issue bringing forth all the
emotion of which the House is capable, as for instance on the question of the Prayer Book, but when we have an afternoon of high comedy such as we have had to-day, which has been the greatest extravaganza I have ever seen in the quarter of a century I have been in Parliament. First of all, we had the Leader of the Opposition making a speech, parts of which we can all support no matter in what part of the House we sit, arguing in favour of constitutional action on all occasions. It was a speech which might have been cheered to the echo by all those dead and gone Tory Members of the House to whom the Minister of Education referred in one of the most moving passages in his speech. Then we had the Lord President of the Council, who made a most excellent and most adroit Parliamentary speech He, on the other hand, defended the flexibility of our Cabinet and Parliamentary system to the utmost. According to the logical interpretation to be put on his speech, almost any revolutionary plan could be carried in this House or in any other Parliament, and would be justified by this flexible constitutional system. Everybody knows that the British Constitution is not fixed, but some of us are anxious to see it is not revolutionary, which is a very different thing.
My right hon. Friend quoted in the erudite fashion, to which we are accustomed when he speaks on historical matters, from eighteenth century and early nineteenth century practice. I do not think it is all relevant to the question at issue, but it was very interesting. There is one thing I would like to take up with him as a matter of purely historical interest. He drew a contrast between what happened in the younger Pitt's Government and what took place in this House in the 'nineties. He said that at the time of the younger Pitt the Government saw Bills that they were promoting or supporting constantly defeated in the House, and that did not cause them to resign, arid he contrasted that with what happened over the Cordite Vote. I am sure that if Mr. Pitt's Government had been faced with the position with which the Liberal Government were faced over the Cordite Vote, they would have resigned. The Cordite Vote was a Vote of Confidence dealing with one of the most important
questions affecting the country, namely, the defence of the country. I do not see any resemblance between those two cases. There has, however, been a vast change in constitutional practice. What was his reasoning? Does he wish to return to the eighteenth century or to the early nineteenth century? As I shall show, the whole doctrine of Cabinet responsibility has grown up not so much because it is intrinsic constitutionally—I agree with him that our constitution is a very flexible one—but because of its practical convenience, and because it is necessary for the conduct of business in this House.
There was only one thing in my right hon. Friend's speech—I say it in all sincerity and politeness—which I rather regretted he said. He said that all the dissentient voices came from those who wish to see this Government split. For my part, I am not in that category. I do not wish to see the Government split. I have supported it with speech and action during its short existence, as I did the previous National Government. I hope it will remain in office for the whole of this Parliament. It was an unfortunate term to speak of "Those who want this Government split"; because, if there, ever were a Government split, it is this Government, so that it was an unfortunate phrase in this connection. If he had said, "Those who wish this Government to come to an end," it would have been a happier way of expressing the situation, because the Government are split at the present time. It may well be argued that those who were returned to support the National Government were returned to support a united Government. I see below me my hon. Friend, who fills what is known as one of the minor offices in the Government, who criticised in strong terms the action of the Government. Does he wish to see the Government split? Another of my hon. and gallant Friends below me criticised the action of the dissidents in stronger terms. He said it would not work at all. I would like to ask the Lord President of the Council or the Attorney-General whether those hon. Members are among those who are attacking this plan merely because they wish to see the Government split? I have no intention of voting for this Motion, which is worded in ridiculous
terms, for the simple reason that, contrary to the opinion of my right hon. Friend, I do not wish to see this Government ended. If the majority voted for this Motion, the Government would have to resign.
That does not prevent me from giving my views on the course which they have taken, and saying in very plain and frank terms that it will not work. I would like to congratulate the Government on the admirable efficiency and smooth working of what I might call their Press publicity agent. I have no doubt that they keep someone who acts as liaison officer between the Press and the Government, and they have certainly succeeded in getting the Press to give a good reception to this plan. I have a shrewd idea of how this was done, without making any charge of corruption against the Press. The person in. question went to the great newspapers and said, "If you criticise this arrangement too drastically you will destroy the Government and destroy the first signs of returning business confidence and of increased advertising revenue. For goodness sake be careful and do not allow a mere question of constitutional rectitude and propriety to influence your action too greatly." I would like to say, by way of parenthesis, that the Press invariably likes Coalition Governments for the reason the House dislikes them—for the simple reason that it can do more with Coalition Governments than with party Governments. No-one knows better than my right hon. Friend, who so successfully for many months withstood a Press attack, how difficult it is. for the Press to destroy a party leader or a party Government, because they have all the party organisation behind them. It is much easier without a party. We all know the story of a Coalition of 1918 and the Press action upon it. There is one respect in which the Press has been scarcely accurate in diagnosing the situation which has arisen. The doctrine of Cabinet responsibility has been thrown overboard not, as the newspapers say, on a mere item of domestic policy, but in a vast fiscal change from the system of free imports to the system of Protection. It is argued that this is only an item of domestic policy. How can a change that is going to affect the whole trading relations of
the world be only an item of domestic policy? It is mixed up with all sorts of international questions, and no one knows that better than the Home Secretary. He knows perfectly well that it is one of the biggest questions, and always has been.
I dislike the dishonest, evasive way in which some people say that this question is dead, is a mere item, is a matter of no importance which does not matter. It is nonsense, and the House knows it. Someone spoke of the good sense of the House of Commons, and I agree that the House of Commons is usually right in the long run. Governments and Oppositions flout it at their peril. This Government will flout it at their peril if they think that this is a mere item of domestic policy, and not what in effect it is, namely, one of the greatest questions that has ever been fought over between both sides of this House or in the country. Some of us have been fighting it for over a quarter of a century, and we rejoice more than I can say that to-day our plans and the policy which we have advocated all these years are in course of fruition. There is to be a reversal of a policy around which has raged more political fighting than around any other question of internal policy, and to-day we are in sight of triumph. I regret that a rather sneering reference was made to my right hon. Friend the Member for Sparkbrook (Mr. Amery). Let me say, as I am sure I can on his behalf as well as on my own, that we who are Protectionists do not care whether we sit on the Front Government Bench or not, as long as we see our policy successful. Our triumph is not in ourselves, but in our policy.
The doctrine of Cabinet responsibility is not a mere abstract constitutional theory. It has been found to be a practical necessity in order that administrative action and legislation may have a fair chance of success. If a minority of members of the Cabinet are at liberty to criticise the action of the majority of their colleagues on a matter of prime importance, the policy dealing with it is subjected from the start to an unfair handicap. Among the many astonishing letters which have appeared in "The Times" newspaper from various mugwumps—and I must say that "The Times" is the great oracle of mugwumpery—there was an astonishing one
from some elderly, amiable, sexagenarian somewhere in the North of England, which praised this plan as being thoroughly in accord with the best business principles. I have been a director of a great insurance company in my time, and know something about company directors. My right hon. Friend the Member for Hillhead knows a great deal more, and he will agree with me when I say that no company which was worth anything at all would allow a minority of its directors, after a policy had been decided upon, to go about the country and attack the policy of the board and express the hope that at the earliest possible opportunity it would be reversed. [Interruption.] Yes; to continue the business analogy, the shares would go down, and the directors would very soon go out.
Speaking as a Protectionist, and I have always been a Protectionist, I believe that the Government's policy will meet with the strong approval of the majority of the electors, but I admit that there is a minority which is opposed to every Measure pased by this House, especially if it is a Measure of such prime importance as the one which we are going to consider this week. Hitherto all Members of the Government have shared alike the popularity and the unpopularity resulting from any Measure which they have initiated. Every Measure that every Government has passed has produced some opposition somewhere in the country, but Members of the Government, as a united body, whether they agree with the Measure or not, are in honour bound in public to play the game —to use a phrase of which my right hon. Friend the Lord President of the Council is very fond; and, in order to play the game, they go about the country supporting these Measures, whether they agree with them in their own minds or not, and they share alike the popularity and the unpopularity.
What is the position that is now open to the dissentients in this Cabinet, and perfectly honourably open to them, given to them by the majority of their colleagues, who seem so pleased with this plan which they have produced? They will be able to go and say to those of the electors who dislike Protection, "Do not blame us; blame the Tories; they are the people responsible"; while, on the
other hand, they will be equally able to say to those who like Protection, and who ask them why they voted against it in the Cabinet, "It is quite true that we did not vote for the Measure, but we remained in the Government and worked with those who did, so we are not really bad." Once you concede the principle of Cabinet irresponsibility which has been conceded by my right hon. Friend this afternoon, you promote disunity in public and you deprive yourself of the weapon of objection to minority Ministers fighting their colleagues as one set of politicians normally fight others who disagree with them.
I cannot think why certain Tory Members of this House were so infuriated with the Home Secretary over his speech last week. He made an excellent fighting speech, though I was in total disagreement with it, against Protection, but the people who are responsible for his making that speech are the majority of the Cabinet who gave him permission to do so. Why should other Conservative Members object? If they want to object, they should object to the action of the majority of the Government who gave him permission to do so. You could not expect a man of the importance of the Home Secretary, with the command of language and the knowledge of facts which he has, not to put the case in the best way that was open; he could not be expected to deal with the matter from a purely colourless point of view.
The matter goes further. We have been told by the President of the Board of Education that the Ministers in question will be given permission to speak and vote against this Measure at any stage, and will not merely be expected to confine themselves, as I do not think the dissentient Ministers would ever agree to do, to a merely formal protest. I agree with the Lord President of the Council that the whole matter depends on how the plan will work, and I want to tell him that I do not think it will work. I believe that it is an utterly unworkable plan, and that before many weeks are out the position will become so difficult for the Conservatives vis-a-vis is the Liberals led by the right hon. Gentleman that, to use a very vulgar phrase, the whole show will bust up. It is because I want to see the Government go on and carry out its work, which I think it is
doing very well, that I so deeply regret that the Cabinet came to this astonishing decision.
I want to say a word with regard to the doctrine of indispensability, but before I do so may I say that I forgot, when making my references to extravaganza, to mention the hon. Member for Gorbals (Mr. Buchanan). I think that the most delicious part of the mingled irony and comedy this afternoon was the hon. Member's speech supporting the Government amid cheers from the Lord President of the Council. Many years ago I was Parliamentary Private Secretary to Mr. Joseph Chamberlain; in fact, I was with him up to the time of his lamentable breakdown in health. It is so long ago now that I think there is no harm in my repeating something that that great statesman said to me in private. Referring to somebody or other, I had said, "I think he is indispensable," and Mr. Chamberlain turned to me and said, "My clear boy, you are young; you are just entering politics. Do remember this: No one is indispensable, especially in politics."
We all tend to rate our services to the country too highly. Everyone on the Front Opposition bench in any Parliament, or on the back benches on either side, who has ever been in any Government, thinks that the Government would be carried on better, or the particular office that he has in mind would be better filled, if he were in the Government; and all those in the Government, especially the leaders, believe that they personally are indispensable, and that they alone stand between their beloved country and disaster. I believe that to be a complete delusion. I believe that, if all those in this House who are in office or who ever held office were suddenly removed, the Government of the country could be carried on by back-bench Members who have never held office, or by men outside such as those who run the great municipalities and businesses of this country, almost as well as it can be carried on by experienced Ministers. The only thing that is indispensable in our political life is the Civil Service. I want to say, speaking as one of them, that politicians who have burrowed in red boxes for 20 years are not necessarily the only saviours of their country. I believe that, if all those who have held office or are in office were
taken out in a ship, and if by some terrible misfortune the ship was lost, what would happen would be that our families would mourn us, there would be a service in Westminster Abbey, and foreign statesmen would shed their crocodile tears, but life would proceed as before, and the man in the street would probably say, "Well, the old gang has gone West at last. I feel very sorry for the poor blanks, but I wish some of them had been drowned 10 years ago." I commend that philosophy to the two right hon. Gentlemen below me, and ask them to believe me that neither they nor any of the rest of us in or out of this Government is indispensable to the carrying on of the Government of the country.

Sir H. SAMUEL: We did not say so; it was the kindness of our colleagues in the Cabinet.

Earl WINTERTON: Yes; it is what I may call a mutual admiration society. You always think yourselves very beautiful, and we are quite prepared to agree with you provided you agree among yourselves, but we are a little disinclined to accept you quite at the value which you put upon yourselves. I beg the Government in these matters not to take themselves too seriously. Most of the people of the country think that the Government have worked very well, and have achieved a great deal in a short time, but do not let them take themselves too seriously, and do not let their leaders take themselves too seriously. Every leader that I have ever met during the 27 years I have been in this House has believed that, if he ceased to be leader of his party or Prime Minister, the party would come to an end. That is a complete delusion. When a great statesman dies, we hear many emotional tributes, but I always have a feeling of cynical amusement when it is said that his like will never be seen again. That is really nonsense. The country can be carried on just as well by men who have never been tried in Government as by those who have. This whole situation, which is a difficult and delicate one, and is going to be far more difficult and delicate as time goes on, would never have arisen if only Members of the Government had remembered that neither individually nor as a body are they indispensable. On the other hand, it is desirable at the
present time that they should continue if it is possible for them to do so, but the price they must pay for that is to agree in public to support the policy which they have put before the country. If they do not do that, they will inevitably come to an end. None of the special pleading put forward by the Lord President to-day alters this indisputable fact, that the public, although they may agree totally to this very inconvenient arrangement, are determined, if we are to have a National Government, that it shall be a united Government in public and in private, and, if it cannot be united, there will have to be some other form of government to take its place. They are not going to put up with a continuance of this rather squalid state of affairs. I, therefore, beg the Government, before it is too late, to make up their minds what they will do. Let them agree not to allow a repetition of the Home Secretary's action last week. If they do allow it, as sure as night follows day, this Government will come to an end or, at any rate, its usefulness to the country will be gravely impaired.

7.30 p.m.

Colonel WEDGWOOD: The atmosphere of high comedy which the Noble Lord has shown to be pervading this Debate has been ably continued by him, and I presume it will continue until 11 o'clock strikes, when the Noble Lord will go into the Lobby with the Government instead of with the party which he has been supporting in the Debate. The atmosphere, indeed, has been enhanced by the Noble Lord's speech. For 20 years, while he has been responsible in office after office, he has concealed his first love. Protection has had no word from him. Now we have seen the re-juvenescence of that Lord Tumour of early days who kept the House so merry a quarter of a century ago. That is an advantage which even a Debate carried on in an atmosphere of irony has given the House something to think of. differ, likewise, from the hon. Member for Fermanagh and Tyrone (Mr. Devlin) for the first time in my life. I beg him to remember that a little honesty in the Cabinet is likely to be popular in the country and not unpopular, that this change will make for greater apprecia-
tion of the work of government and not drag it into the mud. To my mind, if this is a constitutional change, which I doubt, it is a thoroughly good one, making for honesty, for publicity, and for individual responsibility. I congratulate the four Members who offered to resign on the honesty of their action.
The hon. Member for Gorbals (Mr. Buchanan) pointed out the difficulty which a Labour Member had to face, because of his financial position. But that difficulty applies to the whole House and not merely to Labour Members. It is not merely financial disaster if you lose your job, but you have the absolute disaster to your political career. [Interruption.] It matters to the individual very much, and, if any of these four Members had resigned office and lost their jobs, they could never have expected to get office again. The party is too small and the power of the Government too great. It is a great tribute to them that they refused to consider even their political careers. Is this change a change in the Constitution? Is it not rather a change in the power of the Prime Minister? The Prime Minister has said for the first time: "I am not prepared to demand unanimity in my Cabinet." I can only wish that in earlier days he had not been prepared to demand it from the Labour party. At any rate, now that he is in a position of greater independence, I suppose, he offers to his Ministers the right to vote and speak as they think. That is a change in the power of the Prime Minister, and not a change in the constitution of the country, and I cannot help thinking it is a change that might very well be embodied in the rules of the Prime Minister's old party. After all, it would be ridiculous to continue the principle of autocratic control in a party which is not in power when that principle has been dropped completely by the Prime Minister in dealing with the Cabinet. If unity in the Cabinet is not essential, unity in a party obviously cannot be as necessary as it has been held to be by the Labour party in the past.
I want to call attention to another point. The opposition to this change has not been an honest opposition to a change in the form of government. It would obviously be impossible for the Radical party to worship tradition to such an extent as to oppose this change. It has
been largely, from both sides of the House, an expression of the desire on the part of the speakers to get on to that bench themselves. I am certain that the speeches to which we have listened have been almost entirely directed towards getting rid of some Members on that bench in order that other Members may take their places. The speech of the Noble Lord was obviously directed towards that business.
I come back to this, that the Prime Minister, in making this new departure, has shown his hand. It would obviously have been easy for him to get rid of these four Members. He could have replaced thorn with the greatest possible ease. All he had to do was to invite the Members for Sparkbrook (Mr. Amery), Hillhead (Sir R. Horne), Horsham (Earl Winterton) and Tamworth (Sir A. Steel-Maitland), and they would have taken their places. I am thoroughly thankful that their places have not been taken by those four Tariff Reformers, and I want the right hon. Gentlemen who at present constitute this unofficial opposition in the Cabinet to remain in the Cabinet, and I believe everyone who has the interests of Free Trade at heart wants them to remain as some check upon the wild vagaries of the Birmingham school. The whole of the demand for the head of the Home Secretary on a charger has come from the Tariff Reform crowd. They want to be there. Therefore, they want him out. Thank goodness the Prime Minister evidently prefers them, with all their dissentientness, to the Tariff Reform crowd. And not only the Prime Minister. It is obvious that this is the affair not of the Prime Minister but of the Cabinet as a whole, and I am glad the Cabinet prefer retaining an element of common sense on economics rather than admitting the wild men from the Birmingham backwoods. We have a bad time to go through. Let us, at all events, have in the Cabinet some people with the character necessary to offer resignation and with intelligence as to the necessary checks that are to be exercised upon this tariff madness. What I cannot understand, and what has not been touched on yet, is why there are only four of them. Where is the President of the Board of Trade in this business? He has taken no part in the Debate. As every one knows,
he has the Free Trade case not only in his head but in his heart.

Mr. BOOTHBY: No, he is converted.

Colonel WEDGWOOD: Until I hear it from his own lips, I shall not believe is possible. Where is he? Why is he not also among the prophets? There are others as well. There is the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs, at present at Geneva. Has he also gone wrong or is he also to be relied on for a certain amount of strength and vision? The House to-day, far from passing a censure upon the Government for accepting this division of opinion and accepting a change in constitutional practice which I hold to be of great value to the country, and to the character of its politicians, should praise the Government for the first time for trying to keep one element in that party in and another out. This is probably the first action of the Government, from whose every action I have differed since its formation, which shows the beginnings of an understanding of the problem. It would have been so easy when it was formed to get in all those now back bench but formerly Front Bench Tariff Reformers. With the solitary exception of the Colonial Secretary, and possibly the Chancellor of the Exchequer, they have been excluded—a very good sign. My last word to the Government would be: Keep them out, and lei common sense stick in.

Mr. BOOTHBY: There has been a good deal of hot air in the Debate to-day. A good deal of talk about senses of responsibility, dignity, playing the game and all that sort of thing, which may mean anything or nothing. I agree that a great deal depends on how this experiment is worked. With the exception of the speech of my hon. Friend the Member for Gorbals (Mr. Buchanan) and the Noble Lord the Member for Horsham (Earl Winterton), there has not been much reality about the Debate. I myself do not see why any Unionist Member should be called upon to censure a Government which has just adopted the policy which he must have been advocating as long as he has been in politics. It seems to me to be a subject for self-congratulation on the part of Unionist Members. Nor do I see why we should object to any alteration in constitutional procedure as such, provided it will work. Events in
the modern world move with bewildering rapidity, and it is essential that all machinery should be continuously kept up to date, and none more so than the machinery of government, large parts of which are at present obsolete. I was a little disappointed at the speech of the Lord President. I always thought fundamental difference between the Radical and Tory point of view was that the Radical treated questions from a theoretical standpoint, and the Tory always approached them from a purely practical standpoint. The President of the Council developed a theory about the Constitution designed to show that the present experiment would work. It may. But, the traditional Tory method of approach to a problem has been, "Has it worked in the past; and is it likely to work at present?" and I think that is the proper attitude of mind with which to approach this situation.
When Lord Melbourne, who was a very shrewd statesman, made his celebrated observation with regard to the fact that it did not matter what a Cabinet said so long as they all said the same thing, there was an obvious reason for it. The reason was, as the Lord President of the Council very rightly pointed out, that it was designed to prevent one section of the Cabinet from intriguing with the Sovereign against another section of the Cabinet. That is exactly the danger which confronts us to-day. The Sovereign in this country at the present time is the democracy. The danger of the present situation is that one section of the Cabinet may intrigue with the Sovereign against another section of the Cabinet, and that is what we want to be sure is not going to happen.
We may assume, I think, that the attitude of the official Labour party is mere hypocrisy. They certainly are the last people who would object in the future to any necessary Alterations in the Constitution. We all know that alterations will have to be made, and this sudden pedantry, and love of constitutional methods, ill-becomes them, and is obviously insincere. But I do not think there is any good in disguising the fact that there are certain aspects of the present situation which give those who are the best friends and supporters of the National Government cause for grave misgivings. The last election was caused
by the breakdown of economic internationalism. The failure of the nations of the world to co-operate with each other economically led directly to the crisis which, in turn, led to the formation of the National Government. It became clear that a change in our own policy was not only necessary, but urgently desired by the country as a whole.
The National Government was formed, and received a mandate from the country and the electorate at the last election, to put into operation a national economic policy. Of that there can be no doubt. Every National candidate of whom I heard, pledged himself at the election to approach the whole economic question with an open mind, to accept the decision of the Government once it was reached, and loyally to support the Government subsequently. I think the right hon. Gentleman the Secretary of State for the Home Department is guilty of some breach of the pledges that he and his party gave at the election. The Government came to a decision, by a majority of the Cabinet I agree; but at the election we knew nothing about this new doctrine of Cabinet irresponsibility. We were entitled to assume that a majority decision of the Cabinet would be carried out wholeheartedly. The Cabinet came to a decision. The Chancellor of the Exchequer, in his historic statement on Thursday of last week, rightly described that policy as "the main business which had brought us together in this House." Against this policy the right hon. Gentleman the Secretary of State for the Home Department made a very formidable, fierce, and, if I may respectfully say so, a very partisan attack, which astonished many of us who heard it. Nobody expected from the right hon. Gentleman anything but a cogent, clear and powerful statement of the Free Trade case. But he said—and I quote from the OFFICIAL REPORT:
Put an additional charge of 2 or 3 per cent, on the cost of these articles through your tax upon raw materials, and perhaps for the sake of a £1,000 tax received by the Exchequer the manufacturer may lose a contract for £50,000. Repeat that hundreds of times throughout the country, and over the whole range of our industries, and you will get same measure of the injury that is likely to he dealt to British trade from this tax upon raw materials."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 4th February, 1932; cols. 321-22, Vol. 261.]
That is a real distortion of the facts. I suggest to the right hon. Gentleman that if he really supposes that this is going to happen as a result of the policy, he cannot conscientiously remain a Member of the Government which is going to put it into operation. If he does not sincerely believe it, then he is guilty of having made a partisan speech.
Then the right hon. Gentleman referred to the tax on food in relation to unemployment pay. That is the sort of speech we would expect to hear from the hon. Member for Gorbals (Mr. Buchanan) or the hon. Member for Bridgeton (Mr. Maxton), but hardly from the Secretary of State for the Home Department referring to his own Administration. He said towards the conclusion of his speech:
For these reasons, for my own part, at every stage I express my disagreement with these proposals."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 4th February, 1932; col. 328, Vol. 261.]

Sir H. SAMUEL: I said I had expressed them.

Mr. BOOTHBY: He had expressed them. It was useless to beat about the bush in these matters. This is not the place or the time to debate the merits of Free Trade and Protection. But I wish to submit to the right hon. Gentleman the 'Secretary of State for the Home Department that it is really impossible to isolate fiscal policy. It is an integral and vital part of the general economic policy of any Government in any country in the world at the present time. It affects agriculture directly. It affects the whole of industry, and industrial development. It affects coal particularly. No wonder there is misgiving in the coal industry at the present time at the views known to be held by the present Secretary for Mines. For there is no industry which is more vitally affected by fiscal policy than the coal industry. It affects currency policy, Imperial development, and foreign relations. That practically comprises the whole of politics in any country at the present time.
Let me take, as an example, the fundamental question of prices. The right hon. Gentleman dilated in his speech on Thursday night upon the dangers which might arise in regard to the price levels in this country, and the effect of a rise
in the cost of living. He thus revealed a sharp additional cleavage between those holding his views, and those on this side of the House who sincerely believe that until we get a rise in the level of commodity prices we shall never get any prosperity in this country, or, indeed, in the world. I really do not see how the right hon. Gentleman, holding the views he does and those which he expressed in the Debate can remain a Member of an administration which proposes to put the whole of the policy he has so bitterly and cogently attacked into operation. That is what worries me about the future. For I do not believe that he can remain silent about the question.
I have been trying to discover some motive for the attitude he has taken up. I dismiss at once the motive of indispensability, which was suggested by my Noble Friend. India has been put forward as a reason for the action of the Liberal Cabinet Ministers. But if they agree with the policy which is being put into operation by the Government in regard to India, they can give just as effective support to it from any quarter of the House. It is not essential that they should be upon the Treasury bench in order effectively to support, in the eyes of the world, the policy of the Government in India. The desire to maintain the national unity has also been put forward as the reason for the action taken by the Cabinet. But the right hon. Gentleman knows that, although it may be highly entertaining for Members of Parliament to witness the sort of comedy which took place in the House of Commons last Thursday, the spectacle of the Secretary of State for the Home Department getting up and fiercely attacking and endeavouring to overthrow the arguments the Chancellor of the Exchequer has advanced an hour or two before, is not going to enhance either the prestige of the Government or the credit of this country in the eyes of the world. It may seem a vigorous thing to say, but I do think that as a result of what took place on Thursday last, the National Government was for the time being turned into nothing short of a national farce. [An HON. MEMBER: "It was never anything else!"]
When we continue the search for a motive, it is a little difficult for some of
us not to believe that Colonel Tweed's letter may have had something to do with it. I am not at all sure that a horrible spectre, which has for some time been haunting the right hon. Gentleman, but which he thought he had laid, did not emerge out of the fog round Churt. And that rather than allow the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Carnarvon Boroughs (Mr. Lloyd George) to assume the leadership of the Opposition, the right hon. Gentleman the Secretary of State for the Home Department decided to assume the leadership of the Opposition himself. The question that really confronts the House at the moment is whether, and for how long, and under what conditions, the Leader of the Opposition can remain a Member of the Cabinet. For the moment the right hon. Gentleman has got the best of all possible worlds; but only for the moment. I do not think that his position is really a very comfortable one. We all agree with the Noble Lord that last Thursday the right hon. Gentleman displayed great personal courage; but I do not think that he did anything to enhance the prestige of the Government, or the traditions of public life of this country. If he continues upon this course, taking the sort of action he took last Thursday, I certainly believe that the position of the Government will become impossible.
What, for instance, is to happen to the Civil Service? The Noble Lord said that the Civil Service was indispensable to the country. No politician is indispensible, but the Civil Service is. What is going to happen when in the morning the Chancellor of the Exchequer sends for his experts and asks them to supply him with detailed information and arguments in favour of the policy he is endeavouring to put into operation and the same afternoon the right hon. Gentleman the Secretary of State for the Home Department, sitting in his room at the Home Office, presses his bell, as he is fully entitled to do, and sends with all the authority of a Cabinet Minister for those same civil servants, and asks them for details and arguments diametrically opposed to those obtained by the Chancellor of the Exchequer? What is the unfortunate civil servant to do in those conditions? I can only say that I should be very sorry to be a civil servant under these conditions.
The overwhelming majority of this House believe in the policy of the Government as adumbrated by the Chancellor of the Exchequer. We do not care—nobody cares—who carries it out, provided it is carried out by people who believe in it. When I was in Scotland this week-end I found a legitimate anxiety among the agricultural community as to whether the Secretary of State for Scotland was sufficiently enthusiastic about the proposals for the revival of Scottish agriculture, which he is responsible for putting into operation. I am worried about this because I believe that, whether a policy be good or bad, it cannot succeed if it is to be operated by men who not only do not believe in it but who have publicly proclaimed that they think it will be disastrous to the general interests of the country.
That is the sort of thing which worries us. If the right hon. Gentleman and his friends are going to put spokes in the wheel at every stage, in the Cabinet, in this House, and in the country—and from their statements I do not see how they can very well help doing it—sooner or later they are bound to go. And I am not encouraged by leading articles in the two principal Liberal papers in this country, the "Manchester Guardian" and the "News Chronicle," which appeared during the week-end, and which show clearly enough the sort of danger with which we are confronted. Take the "Manchester Guardian":
All who refuse to countenance this fiscal revolution must hope that the other Free Trade Ministers will range themselves firmly behind the Home Secretary and refuse to he deterred by the beset clamour.
It says that an M.P.—who happens to be me—
plaintively asks why the Leader of the Opposition should remain a 'Member of the Cabinet'. The particular turn of events may not have been foreseen a week ago. But if Sir Herbert Samuel can fulfil the unusual role, Liberals at least will not be displeased.
Take the "News Chronicle":
Free Traders are hound now to mobilise for the support of their principles; they are bound to take steps to secure at least that every stage in the imposition of what they believe to be this disastrous policy shall be rigorously examined. This is both their right and their duty: the mere existence of a National Government,' however it
may be constituted, cannot be allowed for a moment to interfere with their mobilisation.
8.0 p.m.
The President of the Council not so very long ago went to Aberdeen and made a speech in which he told his audience that one of the difficulties of a coalition Government was that when you passed the ball you never found the other member of the team in the right place. He expressed the hope that in time the Coalition team would work together, no that you would always know where your man was. I do not think that any member of the Unionist party would have objected if on Thursday the Chancellor of the Exchequer had not found the Home Secretary in his place. What they did object to was that he was found in exactly the right place, and that when he was given the ball he shot as hard as he possibly could at their own goal. We maintain that if the right hon. Gentleman is going to continue to shoot at our own goal, at least he ought to change his jersey. Then we shall know where we are. If, on the other hand, the right hon. Gentleman, having had a shot at our goal, and having missed it, perhaps only by inches, but still having definitely missed it, decides to play a neutral part in future, there is some hope that this strange scheme may operate for some time to come. But we feel, and we have a right to warn him, that if he is going to continue to have shots at our own goal, sooner or later the majority of the House is bound to see that he joins the other side.

Mr. McENTEE: The position which we are discussing to-night reminds me of the lines of an old Limerick:
There was a young lady of Riga,
Who went for a ride on a tiger;
They came back from the ride
With the lady inside,
And a smile on the face of the tiger.
When the Home Secretary and his Liberal colleagues went for a ride in October last with the Lord President of the Council, they had little idea what would be the result of the ride. They came back from the ride with the Tory party dominant in the Cabinet and the House, and, as I and other hon. Members have stated in this House before, the Liberal party have remained as prisoners of the Tory party.
I am not very much concerned about the action of the Government as to whether or not they are making a precedent, but I am concerned in regard to the question of discipline. The hon. Member who preceded me used the term "democracy." I have always understood it to be the right and the democratic thing that when you have discussed a subject and you have come to a decision, you accept the decision of the majority. If that be so, and I believe it to be so, I cannot see why criticism should be levelled at us by the hon. Member for Gorbals (Mr. Buchanan), or why some of the criticism levelled by some Conservative Members at their own Government should have effect. The right thing to do in a party or in a Cabinet is to discuss every matter thoroughly, to differ as far as you must and ultimately, when you have arrived at a decision, accept the majority decision. The right hon. and gallant Member for Newcastle under-Lyme (Colonel Wedgwood) has always been in his outlook what I would call an individualist anarchist. Recently, for some reason, he decided to refuse to accept any longer the rule that he accepted for many years within the party that when the majority had come to a decision that decision should be accepted by the minority. That appears to me to be the only principle of Government which is possible outside anarchy.
Let us carry to its logical conclusion the action of the four Members of the Cabinet who are permitted by the new Cabinet precedent to act as they are doing, and to speak as they are speaking against the Government to which they still belong. It would mean that every individual Member—

Notice taken that 40 Members were not present; House counted, and 40 Members being present—

Mr. McENTEE: I was suggesting that a little consideration should be given to the logic of the position that has been taken up by the Cabinet. I presume that if it is right for four Members of the Cabinet to act as they like it must be equally right for any other four Members or any other number of Members of the Cabinet to act similarly. If it is to be considered right for any number of Members within the Cabinet to act in such a manner, I know of no reason why it is
not right for any number of hon. Members to act on their own; but I do not think the Government Whips would permit the same freedom to the Members who sit behind the Government that they are prepared to allow to certain Members of the Cabinet, or to other Members of the Government who may follow the actions of those particular Members of the Cabinet. I should be glad to see far more freedom given for discussing matters, either in the House or in the Cabinet.
I agree with the Leader of the Opposition that if we could have a more intimate knowledge of the proceedings of the Cabinet it would be very much better for the whole of the Members of the House as well as the people in the country. I should like to know, and I do not think anyone does know, where the Prime Minister stands with regard to this matter. If we had more knowledge of what took place in the Cabinet we should be told whether he agrees with the majority of the Cabinet or not. I read a speech which was made by the right hon. Gentleman in his constituency a. week or so ago in which he said that he had been considering this matter for the past two or three years. I have had pretty close association, perhaps not so close as other Members of my party, with the Prime Minister for the past two or three years and for a longer period, but I have never known him to intimate that he was giving any special consideration to the matter which we are discussing in the House to-day.
Whether the four Members of the Cabinet are indispensable or not, I cannot help feeling that the criticism made by some Members of the Conservative party is legitimate. It is criticism to which any straightforward, honest man should pay a great deal of attention. I could not remain for a length of time a Member of a Cabinet or of any other organisation with which I professed to be in total disagreement on a matter of principle. Honesty ought to compel those four Members of the Cabinet to reconsider their position. I am not concerned with the general policy of the Cabinet, but I would like to know what is going to be the action of the four Ministers with regard to the future. [Interruption.] Could not reasonable order be observed while an hon. Member is speak-
ing? Those who desire to carry on conversation might go outside. It would be a little more courteous. They have only just come into the House. I have been here since the House assembled and I do not think that I ought to be interrupted or ridiculed by someone who has just come in.

Mr. BUCHANAN: Who has just come in?

Mr. McENTEE: I do not mean the hon. Member for Gorbals (Mr. Buchanan). I was referring to some of his colleagues.

Mr. BUCHANAN: Do not speak in that way. This is not a Labour party meeting. This is not a, party meeting at Transport House.

Mr. McENTEE: Nor is it a meeting in a little hall in Islington. I read with interest the speech made on Thursday by the Home Secretary. The part that interested me more than his reference to tariffs was the alternative proposals to which he referred. Those alternatives are worthy of a good deal of discussion. I should like to know what will be the action of the Members of the Cabinet if those proposals are put forward definitely by the right hon. Gentleman who made them in this House. What will be the action of the Cabinet in regard to any future policy that comes before it? It is of very little importance to me whether the Free Traders or the Tariffists in the Cabinet are in a majority, or whether they have the support of this House, because everybody knows that neither Free Trade nor Protection has made any material difference to the conditions of the general body of people either in this country or any other country.
If tariffs were a cure for unemployment and all its evils, it is obvious that those countries where they have been in operation for many years would be in a much better position than we are in this Free Trade country. But that is not the case. We on this side of the House are much more concerned with the condition of the people who are suffering as a, consequence of the squabbles between these two sections of the Cabinet and their followers in this House. We have no proof that any attempt is being made by the Cabinet to better the condition of the people. We have all been com-
pelled to make sacrifices during the last few months, but these sacrifices have been made to a, much greater extent by the people of the country, and particularly by the unemployed. Many men are now unable to get a house which they had reasonably hoped to get a few months ago, and children are lacking the necessities of life because of the economies which we have been called upon to make by the present Government. These things are infinitely more important to us than the squabbles between traders and industrialists and commercial men as to which is the best policy, tariffs or Free Trade, and we have a right to ask what the Government propose as their future policy, outside altogether of the question of tariffs.
We have a right to know what they propose to do with the housing question. I am interested in the building trade and in the effect of a tariff on that trade and the housing problem. I have had a good deal of experience in buying timber, and I know that a tariff, even if it is only of 10 per cent., will make a difference in the cost of a very small working class house of between £4 and £5. A circular was issued a few weeks ago to local authorities by the Ministry of Health appealing to them to give consideration to the type of house they were building, to reduce its size, because it was essential to cut down the costs. They said that if local authorities could not do this the Minister of Health would not be able to sanction the schemes put forward. A tariff will definitely raise the price of house building. It will add from £4 to £5 to the cost of a very small house, and if that amount is capitalised over 40 years it will make a considerable difference to those who have to rent the house.
The same thing applies to every one of the articles upon which a tariff will be imposed. Who pays the tax; because a tariff is nothing but a tax. I hear hon. Members opposite to my amazement say that this is a tax imposed on the foreigner, as if the British Government ever had or can have the power to impose a tax on the foreigner. It can only mean a tax on the British people who will undoubtedly pay it. The importer of the goods will pay the tax to the foreigner and then the merchant and the middleman come in. Does anyone imagine
that he will not pass on the extra fax paid to the foreigner, or that the shopkeeper will bear the extra tax himself and not pass it on to the consumer? Of course he will in every one of these instances. It is so simple that it is amazing that the people of this country should have been taken in as they were by the plausible stories told them by perfectly dishonest people at the last election. It means that the general standard of living of the people will be reduced. Already their wages have been reduced, and with the increase in taxation people have been brought within the Income Tax limits who never paid it before. Everything is going up, and the general standard of the people, as a consequence of the activities of the present Government, has been definitely lowered.
We have a right to ask what the Government are going to do to meet what is of far greater importance to us than the question as to which section of the capitalist class of this country shall take the bulk of the wealth from the exploited workers of the country. The hon. Member for South Shields (Mr. H. Johnstone) can make a very excellent speech in favour of a Free Trade policy. I am not sure whether he is one of the minor ministers who are going to vote against the Cabinet, but at any rate we know and the hon. Member knows, that all this squabble between Free Traders and Tariff Reformers is a question as to which of them shall get the largest share of the wealth which the workers of the country produce. We are far more concerned with stopping that exploitation than in sharing the plunder between the two sections of the capitalist class, one which poses as Free Traders and the other as Tariff Reformers. I know that it is in the interests of certain traders to have a tariff because it benefits them personally, and that other traders would allow things to come in free because it benefits them personally, but it is not in the interests of the worker, and cannot be, to have extra taxes imposed upon him after he has been exploited in the factory and his wages still further reduced in purchasing power.
As regards the general constitutional question, all I can say as a very ordinary citizen, and as one who desires to do the right thing in Parliament and out, is
that it would appear to me to be the right thing to do, if I were in a government with which I fundamentally disagreed, like the two right hon. Members of the Cabinet, to come out of the Government; to be honest about it. They have been told by many members of the Conservative party that they should get outside; and so they should. No honest man would remain in an organisation with which he fundamentally disagreed.
Now I am wondering what the small fry are going to do. Are they going to be logical in their opposition to the Government? How can they justify the action they have already taken in supporting tariffs in a small way just before the Christmas Recess? I know that the Liberals have been rather notorious in recent years in having no particular set of principles or policy at all. They are prepared to give general support to a Labour Government when it is in office, and they give general support now to a Conservative Government to keep it in office. They do not appear to be able to frame any kind of policy that they can agree upon, even amongst themselves. But I am not much concerned about them. None the less I hope they will make an attempt at some kind of logical action in the future, and that they will carry their opposition to this thing, if they are sincere, into the Committee rooms, into every Debate in this House, and into the country. The position is farcical. A Noble Lord opposite described it as a comedy. It is more than a comedy. The position of the Liberals, particularly on this occasion, is so farcical that it is amazing to me they do not see it, themselves. We are concerned with the well-being of the general body of people in the country. There is no earthly use in a Government pretending to be a National Government unless they can show means by which they are going to increase the general standard of living of the majority of the people; and certainly tariffs will not provide means by which that can be done.

Mr. MARJORIBANKS: References have been made to the irony of the present Debate, and perhaps there is particular irony at the moment in the fact that there is only one member of the Liberal party present, the hon. Member for South Shields (Mr. Harcourt.
Johnstone). I am glad that there is only one. I do not know much about him, except that he fought my constituency with considerable lack of success some years ago, and has since not returned to Eastbourne. There is another aspect of the question which has passed the attention of every Member who has spoken in this Debate. That is the curious sadness on this occasion. No one has shed tears over the departure from precedent, no one has mourned the departure of Cabinet responsibility. It has become a sort of joke. But I am not surprised, because I think that the whole nation, when it saw the position of the Government stated in the newspapers, thought that this was a sort of practical joke on the part of our elder statesmen. It has been treated in that spirit very properly throughout the Debate. Nevertheless I think it becomes hon. Members in the old parties of the State to mourn this sad demise of one of the comparatively ancient and very sensible conventions of our constitution. I think we of the Liberal and Conservative parties ought to sing a hymn of mourning and compose a strophe and antistrophe for the departed precedents. It is due.
But after we have mourned I think we are entitled to approach this matter with certain very practical considerations and criticisms. In the first place, will this action increase the prestige of the Government? I hardly think that the nation as a whole will regard the Government with the same respect, because in politics as in justice it is almost as important to seem right as to be right, and it is just as important for the Government to seem strong as to be strong. Hardly anyone can see any trace of strength in the present action of His Majesty's Government. This decision came upon us like a bolt from the blue. No one was prepared for such a sudden change. Those who took part in the Debates before Christmas heard the Lord President of the Council appeal to his party on two separate occasions, not on grounds of argument or principle, but on grounds of party loyalty; and on the Statute of Westminster and the question of India there were, I know, many hon. Members in my party who went into the Government Lobby against their better judgment and against the still small voice of their political consciences, in obedience to the call of their leader. Now we find
that the rule which was not relaxed in favour of the inexperienced new Members who still had some inspiration of political honesty, is relaxed and even abolished in the inner councils of the nation. That is the position with which we are faced at the present time. No one can say that the prestige of the Government has been increased by that. We now find the Lord President of the Council in a speech full of fourth-form logic and elementary political history telling us that a new situation has arisen and that it demands a change in one of the most sensible usages in our Constitution. I think we have only to ask the question about prestige to answer it in the negative.
Then there comes the even more important question, has this change increased the efficiency of the Government? Has it increased the Government's power to act, its vigour in action? There is an old saying that a house divided against itself cannot stand. The Government with so large a majority can repeal a constitutional convention, but they cannot repeal the eternal verities of human nature. They cannot say that a Government divided in council can be as strong in action as if it were united. So we are bound again to answer our question in the negative. There is another question which interests me more, and that is, is this a permanent or a temporary abandonment of the principle? I came down to the House prepared to hear speeches from the Lord President and others, and expecting them to say that this was a temporary expedient to bridge over an extraordinarily difficult situation. But, no. If anything could have persuaded me to vote against the Government and with the Motion moved by the Opposition, it was the speeches of the right hon. Member for North Cornwall (Sir D. Maclean) and of the Lord President. Apparently they have completely and for ever jettisoned this convention. The Lord President of the Council clearly does not care for precedent at all; he does not consider that it is worth a moment's consideration when circumstances change. That is a strange attitude for a leader of the Conservative party.
8.30 p.m.
On the other hand, I think this is a matter purely of common sense. By the simplest methods of argument you can
decide whether this has increased the prestige of the Government, whether it has increased the power of the Government. You can answer both questions in the negative. Then you can ask, "Is it worth while?" The right hon. Gentleman the Home Secretary could possibly have made a reasonable speech; he could have made a speech which was decent, which was conciliatory. He made a speech which, in the circumstances, was hardly decent and certainly not conciliatory. In times of peace statesmen are allowed the luxury of ideals. They can talk about matters as matters of general principle. Have we forgotten what we were talking about at the last election? We were talking in terms of crisis, almost in terms of war; and in times of crisis we cannot afford the luxury of talking about political ends. We have to talk about political means, about how we are to save the nation.
There is a precedent for this situation in what happened during 1914–1918. Then, we had a Coalition Ministry. We were concerned with the means of saving the nation, and one of the most important questions which our statesmen had to face was whether they were going to carry on the War by voluntary service or by conscription. That question involved moral and political considerations no less important, perhaps more important, than the distinction between Protection and Free Trade. But it became a question of means and not of ends. Members of the Government were to be found on both sides of that question and urging strong considerations on each side. We know that the Foreign Secretary was a strong advocate of voluntary service. We know that he resigned when the other view prevailed. That was a question of a means to an end. What would be said of a member of that Government who had been allowed to stay in the Government after conscription had been decided upon, and who then denounced it from the housetops as tyranny and did everything in his power to baulk the means which were advanced towards that end. Surely it would have made us a mockery among the nations. Would there have been any chance of winning the War with a House thus divided against itself? Is the situation so very different now?
No, I think the nation at the last election presented a singularly unanimous voice; it presented a mandate, almost a command, for the members of the various parties to agree upon a policy. Whatever the general will was, one thing at any rate which the general will did not decide was this—it certainly gave no command to the Members of all parties to form a Government in order to agree to differ. That, surely, is an insult to the singular unanimity of the nation. It might have been thought that a man, however clever —and we all agree that the Home Secretary is clever—[interruption.] I was just paying a compliment to the right hon. Gentleman and his entry was well-timed. Let the Home Secretary wait and hear what else we have to say about him, and perhaps his exit may be equally well timed. Nobody, I say, disputes that the right hon. Gentleman is a clever man but it might have been thought that a man, however clever, however deeply committed to economic theories of the past, would have said, "The nation has agreed that some plan must be adopted. Therefore, although it involves considerable intellectual and moral self-sacrifice, I must sink my individual opinions and try to make that plan, however bad, work as well as possible." These things have happened before. Rightly or wrongly that is the way of democracy. It is not necessary to go back to Lord Falkland and the Battle of Edge Hill or to Robert E. Lee and the American Civil War to find instances of statesmen who have put country first and who have, although they were convinced that there was a better plan, decided to follow faithfully the inferior plan and perhaps, even thus, help to achieve their country's safety and victory.
I think the right hon. Gentleman in this case took the less noble part. He presented us with a speech which was entirely academic. In my view there was not one element of constructive statesmanship in it. We were familiar with the arguments. Although the right hon. Gentleman did not mind prohibition, he abhorred Protection. He swallowed the camel but would not take the gnat, because, forsooth, the camel was a matter of expediency but the gnat was a question of principle. There are some people who object to the right hon. Gentleman's
speech. There are some people who found its tone extremely offensive and who deplored it. I, for my part, rejoice. It might have been possible for the right hon. Gentleman to have made a speech which would have made him beloved and respected by all the Members of this House which might have raised him almost to the position of a national hero. Had that been the result, people would have said "Tell it not in Dartmoor, publish it not in the streets of Churt, but the Home Secretary is a good fellow and a great patriot and it may be, after all, although we differ from him on economic principle, that he will still be a valuable asset to the Cabinet." But how could anybody take that view after the singularly unseemly speech—I take his own word—which he made on Thursday last? After that speech, how could anybody take the view that he could possibly advance any plan which has so far been presented to this House by the Cabinet? I rejoice in the speech of the right hon. Gentleman and I hope that he will go from strength to strength. He did not shrink from imputing what I think were the vilest of political motives to his opponents.

Sir H. SAMUEL: No.

Mr. MARJORIBANKS: I will not withdraw that statement. He suggested that they were taking the burdens from the rich in order to put those burdens on the poor. I hope, I say, that the right hon. Gentleman will go from strength to strength, reviling his colleagues, imputing vile motives to them and supplying the most dangerous and effective ammunition to His Majesty's Opposition. It is that he will so show that this strange plan which has been adopted with such sanguine expectations by the Lord President of the Council, must come to nought. The Home Secretary by that speech inevitably put a term upon this present ignoble compromise, as I regard it. I do not think that he could have made a more perfect speech from the point of view of those who agree with me. Meanwhile it is an ill wind which blows nobody any good. It will be a great time for those who have some independent political judgment. There will be rejoicing in the caves of Adullam. I venture to think that if the lions in the political Zoo are allowed to roar as they please, surely
the humble mice will be permitted to squeak and to scamper as they choose across the Floor of this House.
I think that the right hon. Gentleman the President of the Council failed to make good the distinction between party loyalty and loyalty to the Government. I do not think that I would have the slightest difficulty in exposing the fallacy of the distinction which he sought to make, and to do so on his own premises—[Interruption]. It was the Lord President of the Council himself who sought to make that distinction, but I do not think that it was a valid distinction—on his own argument—as between those who support the party and those who support the Government. But as I have said, it is an ill wind which blows nobody any good and I hope that hon. Members who are not Members of the Government will not be outdone by the Home Secretary in independence. I hope that they will endeavour to push the Government and to press the Government forward according to their pledges even more violently than the Home Secretary is endeavouring to pull them back according to his own ideas. History repeats itself and in the permanently wise books of the world at any rate, one occasionally finds some explanation of the actions of the present day. When the Home Secretary made that speech I really think that he must have been inspired as his distinguished namesake was in the remote and bitter past, because we read:
And the Lord said to Samuel, Behold, I will do a thing in Israel, at which both the ears of every one that heareth it shall tingle.
Certainly he made the ears of the Tariff Reformers tingle the other night and that was a great achievement because we are a singularly obstinate and thick-skinned people We have pursued this object for many years, and we are prepared to do our very utmost to see that it finally reaches the crown of fulfilment. In the meantime we cannot take this Vote of Censure seriously. It. is a ridiculous expectation to think that we, the Conservative party and one of the constitutional parties in the State, can support a Vote of Censure coming from the right hon. Member for Bow and Bromley (Mr. Lansbury). We have only to compare what might have happened in the last Parliament. Supposing, for instance, I
had moved a Vote of Censure on the last Government for not providing work or maintenance for the people of this country. Would it have been expected that my hon. Friend the Member for Bridgeton (Mr. Maxton) would have followed me into the Lobby? There must be some kind of limitation to the company you keep in the Lobby.

Mr. MAXTON: Oh!

Mr. MARJORIBANKS: I did not intend that in an offensive sense at all. What I sought to say was that you must be careful in going into the Lobby—

Mr. MAXTON: The hon. Member must remember occasions in the last Parliament when we went into the Lobby with him and against the Labour Government.

Mr. MARJORIBANKS: Like most politicians, I have a memory that is conveniently short, but I do not remember the hon. Gentleman coming with me into the Lobby for the vindication of the British Empire on the Statute of Westminster Bill, or for the maintenance of rule in India and the protection of the millions of the depressed classes of Indians. I regret that my political memory is sufficiently accurate to remember that the hon. Gentleman was not there on those occasions. As I say, I do not think I could have expected my hon. Friend, in the last Parliament, to follow me into the Lobby on a hypocritical Motion from me concerning work or maintenance. I think more of the hon. Gentleman than that. Neither could I follow the right hon. Member for Bow and Bromley when he, as a sort of political and constitutional purist, introduces this, for him, ridiculous Vote of Censure. It is a very bad precedent to have set for himself. It argues very badly for the future of his opposition. This is the first considerable Vote of Censure, as he said himself, which he has moved, and, of course, it is a farce and a sham, and I could not possibly vote for it. Indeed, I shall with the greatest pleasure in the world vote against it, and as I go into the Government Lobby to-night, however much I disapprove of the violation of this constitutional convention at the present time, I shall know that the great majority of the Government have decided upon the great issue at the present time, the only important issue for me, namely: Is Great Britain to be an island, or is she to be an Empire?
I shall be sure that they have taken the first and most effective step towards the latter end. After all, it is the policy that matters above all things, and as I march joyfully and give my name to the Division Clerk in the Government Lobby, I shall also be consoled by the fact that owing to the attitude of the Home Secretary, to use his own epithet again, his unseemly attitude in this matter, I know that this ignoble constitutional compromise will be of short duration.

Mr. J. JONES: It has been said in other places that out of the mouths of babes and sucklings there sometimes cometh wisdom. I am very pleased indeed to have had the opportunity today of hearing a series of historical lectures, beginning at the wrong end and finishing at the bottom. The right hon. Gentleman who, in the absence of the Prime Minister, leads the House, started off by beginning with the second Charles, and finished up with a reference to George III, a very significant lapse in English history. Some of us have not had the opportunity of going to the schools to learn history in the orthodox way—we have only been able to learn it since we left school—but we are finding that nearly all the historical and political action in this country to which the right hon. Gentleman referred took place at a time when the common people had no voice in the government of the country. They were pariahs and outcasts, so far as political opportunity was concerned.
The right hon. Gentleman never came on to the Georges of modern times, and certainly not to his present Majesty King George V, because it would have completely knocked the bottom out of his story. We had references to Pitt, the bottomless pit, and to the Prime Ministers who were really dictators, in the days when the common people had no voice in the government of the country, when Kings, with the assistance of their Prime Ministers, were able to give the land of the country away to their favourites. The history we have had given to us to-day is a misrepresentation of the real history of the British people, and I leave it at that. Constitutionally, the Cabinet is supposed to be, for the time being at least, the Government of the country. As to what Pitt or Walpole or any of the others who went before them
did, I am sorry their names have been mentioned, because their history will not bear investigation. If there was a volume published as to corruption in this country, those names would stand out most prominently as those of men who robbed the people of their birthright or attempted to do so.
But we are coming down to modern days. There is one thing that could be said about the Governments of those past days: they were united and they all agreed upon robbing the people. That was the principal item on their agenda; it was the Acts of the Apostles, so far as they were concerned. These modern Governments are of a different kind. Some are Free Traders, free to rob the people; others are Tariff Reformers, out for the same thing. They do not care to the extent of a jingle on the tombstone, from the standpoint of personal interest, whether there is Tariff Reform or Free Trade—the common people have to be taken advantage of in both cases. This Vote of Censure is to some of us a natural vote. The last speaker, the hon. Member for Eastbourne (Mr. Marjoribanks), is naturally a Conservative. Nobody objects to his being a Conservative. He is going to keep all he can and get all he can. [HON. MEMBERS: "Oh!"] I believe in the good old rule. Let us keep all we can and get as much as we can, and I am going to, because I think the class to which I belong has a right to get everything there is. There is no doubt about that. I think I have a right to take a leaf out of your book. You have done it very well. Why should not I? You talk constitutionally to me, but I know your constitutionalism. It means that so long as you are the top dogs, we have got to be the bottom dogs.
In the last General Election some of you had the courage to say what you believed; others had not. The Home Secretary has retained his position in the present Government, but he knew when he went in what they stood for, namely, everything in which he does not believe, in fiscal policy. He says that his action is in the national interest, but what is the national interest? Is not the interest of the ordinary working people the real national interest? Do they not represent at least 90 per cent. of the population, men, women and children? The men and women who work for wages
are the people of this country in the main, and if they are, and if a man believes that your policy is going to take advantage of them, if he believes that your policy is going to place further burdens upon them in addition to those which they already bear, are we not entitled to say that he is in the wrong camp when he sits on those benches taking part in a policy which he abhors?
I admire the Tariff Reformer, because we do not expect anything better from him. If he is honest, he believes in taxing things which the people need to save himself from being taxed. We have already been told that one of the proposals which is likely to be made in the next Budget is a reduction in the Income Tax—for whose benefit? We are also told that there is to be an increased tax on tea. The very things which the ordinary people use are to be taxed, and those who are best able to bear it are to be relieved of taxation. You did not tell the people at the General Election that that was your policy. Who is creating the situation which has been brought about? I do not care, for I am not interested in precedents. I have broken as many in the House and out of it as most people. If I go on to a committee, I claim the right to say what I think, but when a decision is arrived at, I claim the right also to abide by it on the executive or to get off the committee. Those who claim to be constitutional in the Conservative and Liberal parties cannot object to that principle. It is no use taking me back to the days of King Charles; I want you to bring me back to the days of King "Mac."
So far as we are concerned, it is not going to be a doctor's mandate, but a surgical operation, and the operator will not be the gentleman who asked for the mandate, but the gentleman who never got it, or at least never asked for it. There are sitting on the Front Bench men who know that they are on the slippery slope, for they will have to sacrifice every principle for which they have ever stood as the Government proceeds. After to-morrow there will be a series of Debates and Divisions upon the various proposals for taxing the commodities which the people use, and yet, because of the new doctrine of Cabinet responsibility, we shall have to have this
spectacle of lifelong Free Traders getting up in the House and opposing the Government to which they belong, and going to the country to give away the secrets of Cabinet meetings. This will make the confusion worse confounded. I wish the Government joy of their recruits. Thank God we are clear!
My hon. Friend below the Gangway made reference to divisions in the Labour party, but that party has never pretended to be absolutely united on every subject under the sun. Even those Members who have become converted to the Simon pure policy and who jibe at us do not agree with each other. Wherever a body of men meet together there are bound to be differences, but on fundamental issues they do not differ. On those issues honest men will go against those opposed to them. There is no difference on fundamental issues in our party. We are neither Free Traders nor Protectionists. The only protection in which I believe is the protection of the working class against the robber class, the people who all through the centuries have lived by the exploitation of the common people. That is the kind of protection that I shall preach as long as I am in this House. You will go into the Lobby and establish your Protectionist schemes to the fullest extent, and then where will you be? On 31st December the people will be in the same place as they were on 1st January—always in the same position, "go day come day, God send Sunday." What is t he difference between the worker in Great Britain and the worker in the United States and Germany or any other Protectionist country? They are all in the same boat, so far as their economic circumstances are concerned, and all at the mercy of the people who dominate their needs of life. The people who own the land and capital of every country are the dominating factor. Therefore to put the tariff policy forward is like putting a sticking plaster on a wooden leg. Your Protection proposals are pills for an earthquake. I am glad to see the Liberals and the Conservatives join together, because it shows that the real issue is now being joined. The next fight will be capitalism against Socialism. We are glad that it is coming. We will go into the fight with our bands playing and our flags flying. We will face the people of the country, and instead of
7,000,000 votes, we shall have nearly double at the next election because you will fail lamentably. Your doctor's mandate will turn out to be an emetic, and the mass of people will discover that you have been weighed in the balance and found wanting, with your Free Trade chemist giving assistance to the doctor performing the operation, and all the other doctors waiting by with their mouths wide open to swallow the medicine which they do not get.
9.0 p.m.
The idea of those Ministers who do not agree with the tariff policy is, "Whatever happens, we must remain in the Government because without them we will be lost; there will be no hope for us. Rather than see the Socialists come back to office, we will sell our souls and principles and give our bodies away to the people whom we have always been opposing." We in this party are not built that way. We shall keep on fighting, and although we are not so clever as the other parties, we hope that we are cleaner. I said during the election, and I say it now, that this is not a National Government but a national insult. They were returned by means of the greatest misrepresentation and the assistance of some renegades who left our movement. There is one thing that Judas Iscariot did: he had the decency to go out and hang himself. Some of the new Judases have not been so decent. A right hon. Gentleman said a short time ago that no man is indispensable. Nor is any section indispensable and individuals are not indispensable to the Labour movement. We will keep on to the end of the chapter, and eventually we shall sit on those benches as a real working-class Government. Then we shall be able to do what you are doing and carry our policy into effect. We shall then ask those who do not agree with us to leave the place.

Mr. de ROTHSCHILD: We have listened to a most interesting Debate, and a most entertaining side of it has been that those Members, mainly, who spoke in support of the Government spoke from the other side and those who spoke against the Government are mainly numbered among its own supporters. We heard a most brilliant speech from the Noble Lord the Member for Horsham (Earl Winterton), but I thought that his position, which is that of a great many other Members of this House, was a most
illogical one. It was his contention that those Members of the Cabinet who do not agree with the policy of the majority should resign, and he taxed them with insincerity, and yet he said that he himself was a supporter of the Government and would vote for them to-night, although disapproving of this great innovation in constitutional history. Hon. and right hon. Members on the other side are in the same illogical situation, for we have seen the right hon. and gallant Member for Newcastle-under-Lyme (Colonel Wedgwood) congratulating the Government on its attitude and the hon. Member for Gorbals (Mr. Buchanan) doing likewise. The speech of the hon. Member for Silvertown (Mr. J. Jones) I will not trouble to discuss, because, as usual, it was totally irrelevant to the subject under review.
The three main objections advanced againts the step which has been taken by the Government are, first, that it violates the Constitution, second, that it will not work, and third, that it is dishonest and unscrupulous. The contention that it violates the Government has been answered very ably to-night. It has been pointed out that the British Constitution is a fluid one, and is constantly in the process of being built up. I will not trouble to quote authorities who have written on this subject, but, I would refer hon. Members to Professor Dicey, who was perhaps the greatest authority on Constitutional history up to the present time. He explains in the preface to his hook on Constitutional Law that many innovations have been introduced in the past and that they are the essence of the British Constitution. The Cabinet itself, as we have been told, was an innovation, and was as bitterly opposed in the days of William III and afterwards as is the present innovation to-night. There have been precedents, also, in the Cabinets of the past for the differences which have occurred in the present one. The doctrine of collective Cabinet responsibility was accepted only in the last century. The principle of Cabinet unanimity has worked well, but it is based in essence upon party Government, and in that respect the custom of the country has been departed from on this occasion. We have a National Government, and therefore the situation is altered. Professor Dicey says in his book that even with
party Government a Foreign Secretary—and he adds a Foreign Secretary who was a genius—could carry on both in a Conservative Government and in a Liberal Government, and points out there is no earthly reason why the same Lord Chancellor should not function equally in a Liberal and in a Conservative Government.
As for the question whether this innovation will work or not, experience will show. The hon. Member for East Aberdeen (Mr. Boothby) regretted that the Lord President of the Council had adopted this line in his speech. He said the line of a Tory politician was to say of a thing, "It will work because it has worked." If for once the Tory party have departed from their custom of accepting only what has existed before, and have adopted a method of progress, we Liberals on these benches can only congratulate them on it. But the agreement to differ on one point must not result in a cleavage which would influence the decisions on other questions, and here the action of the majority will have a great bearing, but the very fine spirit of the speech of the Lord President of the Council, and the fact that this innovation was suggested by a former Tory Lord Chancellor, Lord Hailsham, do indicate that the majority will lend an ear to the views of the Liberal Members in the Cabinet.
The third objection which has been put forward is a far more serious one. It is that the dissentient Ministers are acting dishonestly and unscrupulously. I venture to say that open disagreement in the Cabinet is not less honest than stifled disagreement can be. To avow open disagreement is in no way less honest than to vote in this House in support of a view which one does not honestly share with other Ministers. Constitutional government is only a machine by which the will of the people can be effected. There can be no doubt that the will of the people was clearly shown in the last election. They demanded a National Government, because it was felt that in these complicated and difficult times all points of view should be discussed from within and with seriousness and frankness. When electors in the General Election ceased to vote for a party for which they had voted all their
lives, and changed their allegiance, it was only because they expected that their point of view would be voiced in the Cabinet and in this Parliament. The hon. Member for East Aberdeen who made an attack on the Home Secretary, was one of those who went to the Liberal Association and asked that the Liberal candidate should stand down. In 1929 he got in by only a very small margin, but at the last election he won his seat with a huge majority, and he ought to remember that he represents not only those Tories who put him in but also the many thousands of Liberals who contributed to his election.
At the General Election the fiscal policy was not part of the policy put forward either by the Prime Minister or the Lord President of the Council. It was not regarded as a paramount issue. The paramount issue was, Shall we or shall we not have a National Government to tackle these great problems which face the country to-day—war debts, reparations, currency, disarmament? These still remain to be solved. We Liberals here who consider the fiscal policy put forward by the majority of the Government to be burdensome to all classes of the community and industry, who consider that it will add to the burden of the nation, must, therefore, feel it still more incumbent upon us to contribute as much as we can towards lightening the burden in other directions and solving the problem of national debts and national expenditure. Sir Walter Layton, who was the representative of this country at the recent meeting at Basle, has pointed out the importance of the question of internal debts. As long as every child born in this country has a debt of £150 hanging over its head, we shall always be in a state of inferiority in competition with other countries which have a burden which is incomparably lighter than our own. This burden may be directly borne by the wealthier classes, but it affects the standard of living of the masses and of every man in the country. Besides the question of the National Debt there is also the question of national expenditure. So long as this country continues to spend annually one-fifth of the national revenue so long will this question remain a burning problem before the nation and so long will there be some work to be done by the Liberals in the Cabinet as we know it to-day.
The Liberals are prepared to share the unpopularity which cannot help but result in the country from any action in that direction. The Prime Minister and his Liberal colleagues are willing to go on collaborating upon these questions. If by this departure from all precedents the Cabinet can settle down to the consideration of these problems which are each of them separately just as important as the fiscal measures which are now being taken, then a solution of these great national problems will be found and the National Government will be carrying out its duty to the electors and I think the constitutional experiment which we are now carrying out will then be found to have been worth while. I consider that no demand should be made now on the, dissentient Ministers to leave the Cabinet and so disregard the good will shown to them by the Prime Minister who has striven so hardly to maintain national unity.
The National Government was elected in order that more than one point of view should be put forward at Cabinet meetings and thus each Member of the Government owes it to the country to voice his own conception. If Members of the Government believe that the fiscal policy has an important bearing on questions of world peace, disarmament, war debts and reparations or if they believe that the new fiscal system will prevent the countries of the world arriving at a settlement, then it becomes their duty to put forward their views in regard to any fiscal changes proposed by the Government. It is the will of the nation that all these views should be expressed. The dissentient Ministers are in the position of a devoted wife who sees her husband at the point of taking a dangerous step. She will argue, remonstrate and put her views before him at his bed and board, his goings out and comings in, but there will be no divorce, because they know that the match was made by confiding and trusting electors in the hope that it would have a fruitful outcome of which both parents might be justly proud. These matches, I am told, are made in Heaven and I feel that this one should not be terminated in this House to-night nor I hope in another place.

Mr. GORDON MACDONALD: I have just been thinking that the Home Secretary will not enjoy the idea of being con-
sidered the devoted wife of the Conservative party. I think the Prime Minister would have been well advised last Tuesday, when he was pressed by the Leader of the Opposition, to allow this Debate to take place before the Debate on the Tariff Motion to have given his consent. The result has been that the Debate has centred on the speech of the Home Secretary, who attacked the Prime Minister and his colleagues, whereas if the Prime Minister had accepted our suggestion the position might have been very different. Some very direct questions of procedure have been raised, but the Leader of the Opposition is not quite so interested in that subject as the Prime Minister. We want to know whether the Cabinet is justified, when it finds itself in difficulties, in changing the Constitution to suit its own ends. We do not say that the Constitution should not be changed, but are the Cabinet entitled to do this at a time when they are in a difficulty of their own creation? The Cabinet has had before it the report of the committee dealing with the balance of trade, and they have found it impossible to adopt the whole of the recommendations of that committee. How much stronger would the Government be if the Members who differ from the majority of the Cabinet were outside? Would the fact of their differences being expressed when they are not Members of the Cabinet make for more unity than by their expressing them and remaining in the Cabinet? We fail to see that the fact that these people might say, not being Members of the Cabinet, that they disagreed with the tariff policy, would make for less unity than for them to remain in and say they disagreed with Cabinet policy.
If it is national unity that is in question, they are not deceiving the nations of the world by saying they are united because they are all in the same Cabinet, whereas if they left the Government and voiced their differences outside, they would not be united. No one knows better than the Home Secretary, with his lucid, logical mind, that the question of unity would not alter at all if he spoke from this Box with the same vigour that he spoke from that Box against the tariff policy. If we want to appear united, that is all very well, but we on these benches have never placed much value on appearances. We prefer realities far more than appearances. If
there is real unity, there is no need to try to appear united. It is because there is not real unity that they bring this mask of so-called unity. What is happening? The Home Secretary told the Prime Minister at a Cabinet meeting: "I am going to oppose the policy or resign." The Prime Minister said: "Do not resign, but stay with us for the sake of appearances, and if you stay we will concede to you the right to speak and vote against it. Whatever else you do, if you want to help the opponents, help them, but stay inside. If you want to score for them, do so, but stay on the field in our team." That is the team spirit in the Cabinet. No Member of the Government or anyone outside the Government could have scored better on this issue than that expert exponent, the Home Secretary.
If Members of the Cabinet can claim the right to voice their opinions against Cabinet policy and vote against it, what right have they to say to the back benchers that they must not exercise the same right, but must accept the whip and support the Government? Surely, if it is right for the front bencher to voice his opinion against the tariff policy and vote against it, it cannot be wrong for the back bencher to demand the same privilege. Supposing the majority in this House were in favour of a policy supported by a minority in the Cabinet, what would happen? Was it not because the Cabinet was sure that the majority of the House held the same opinion on the tariff policy as a majority of the Cabinet that this arrangement was made? Does anyone suggest that if there had been some doubt whether there was a majority in this House in favour of their policy this course would have been arranged? This is a simple arrangement to continue deceiving the electorate as they were deceived at the election.
The hon. Member for Gorbals (Mr. Buchanan) devoted the whole of his speech to giving lessons to the Labour party and the Trades Union Congress. He said we had no right to ask for Cabinet documents to be disclosed until the Labour party disclosed all its documents, or the Trades Union Congress disclosed all its documents, or that you had any right, to ask a man to take up one stand in the Government and then to take up an opposite stand in this House.
Surely there can be nothing wrong in that? I have been accustomed to be a trade union delegate and have fought for certain points of view in my own lodge. I have gone to conferences and fought for the same points of view and have been defeated, and after that defeat I have accepted the decision of the majority. During the miners' stoppage in l926, and on many other occasions, I differed from the policy being pursued and put forward another policy, but when I was defeated at the conference, accepted the decision and I never thought it was wrong to go about and preach that policy. We see nothing wrong in the Cabinet frankly facing the matter, and what, we say to the Home Secretary and his colleagues is this. They accept the decision of the majority on this question, but they say to the House, "We agree to accept the majority decision that we should stay in the Cabinet, but we will not accept the other. We have a conscience on the trade policy, but we have no conscience on the other question. On the trade policy we take up a stand, but if the majority say we should stay in, we accept the majority decision." How can a man say he will agree with the majority on this question but on that question he will not agree and will go to the extent of resigning? I fail to see anything in the procedure adopted to show that this is a National Government.
9.30 p.m.
The Chancellor of the Exchequer, in his fine exposition of Protectionist policy last Thursday, said the great day for which the Tory party had longed since October had come, when they could commence to put their policy into operation. Whose policy is it? It is the policy of the Tory party. The Lord President of the Council has said it was the result of serious thought inside the Cabinet, but it is merely the policy of the Tory party. What this gesture shows on the part of the Government is that the three Liberal leaders, plus Viscount Snowden, prefer to sink their opinions in the name of an apparent unity. What may happen? Lord Sankey is almost certain to differ from the Secretary of State for India on Indian policy. Lord Sankey then claims the right to put before the House his own policy in opposition to the Sec-
retary of State. Shall we then say that is a sign of unity?
What we in the Labour party feel—and this is the only reason why we place this Vote of Censure on the Order Paper —is that this is not honest dealing with the House of Commons, nor is it straightforward. It is not maintaining the prestige or the efficiency of this House. Let no one say we are standing for some minor constitutional point. We are not. If the Government had said frankly that they could not agree, that one section opposed this policy and another section accepted it and that the section which opposed it was not to continue its support, that would have been honest dealing, and the prestige of the Government would not have fallen. As it is, that prestige has fallen in so far that the country believes it is nothing more than chicanery and insincerity for three men to say, "We do not agree with the policy, but we will remain in the Cabinet that is going to carry out that policy, and oppose it."

Mr. MAXTON: I rise to speak with very great reserve in support of the view put forward earlier by my hon. Friend the Member for Gorbals (Mr. Buchanan). We placed an Amendment on the Paper, but I understand that you, Mr. Speaker, are unable to grant us an opportunity of recording our votes in support of it. It remains our point of view none the less. We think this Government is due for censure all the time. We think it deserved to be censured from the first day it was conceived in the mind of the Prime Minister, but we think, at the same time, that the least censurable thing it has done has been to agree to the liberty that it has considered it desirable to grant to a minority of its Members. We who belong to the party that sits on this bench have laid tremendous stress on the question of liberty in the House of Commons. We believe that nothing but good can come from men who believe things taking the liberty to stand for those things here and elsewhere, and that, when a man allows his point of view to be subordinated, even temporarily, he not merely does a wrong to himself, he not merely does violence to his own character, but he does something which does violence to the principles for which he is supposed to
stand, and that can never, in the long run, work out for good in the body politic, however suitable it may be for carrying one through awkward situations of the moment.
I have this amount of sympathy with the Home Secretary, that he himself has had to bear the major brunt of the personal attack. The President of the Board of Education, I must say, got through his little piece to-day wonderfully well. I do not think that the hardest Tory in the place had any feeling against him, the reason being that he propounded his point of view with perfect sincerity but with very great urbanity—an urbanity which, I gather, was lacking from the Home Secretary's method of addressing the House on Thursday.
Although Cabinet responsibility has gone overboard, we still have Cabinet secrecy, so that we who are outside the sacred portals, in the absence of direct information and minutes such as my hon. Friend the Member for Gorbals urged, must be content with exercising our imagination; and our imagination leads us to believe that the mule who first put down his feet and said, "We are going to resign rather than support these fearful tariff proposals," is not sitting on the Front Bench in the House of Commons, but is probably sitting comfortably in the other place. We can imagine that the strong man in this revolt was our late comrade, the Noble Lord who was formerly the Iron Chancellor. I have known him better than I have known practically anyone else in this House except the Prime Minister. I have known him for nearly a quarter of a century, and right through from the time when he held minor positions in our small party he was always ready to throw in his resignation at any moment. He has carried that successfully through his life, and has never yet met a body of men who were ready to call his bluff; and he never placed his resignation on the table until he had dug out a better hole to go to.
It is not enough merely to throw overboard the doctrine of Cabinet responsibility; with it must go the doctrine of Cabinet secrecy. I would ask the Attorney-General, who, I understand, is going to reply for the Government, to be quite frank and tell us the story of what took place—not to leave it to rumour and
imagination, but to tell us just exactly what took place. Where was the Prime Minister in this little dispute? Has the Cabinet some responsibility for hastening his illness, because of the worry and excitement that it gave him? Had he no view on this matter? I have never been in a Cabinet, and, in spite of jeers on the subject from the benches opposite or on this side, I hope I shall be able to lead a clean political life without the necessity of having to go into a Cabinet. It has been said that the hon. Member for Bridgeton, if he were in the Government, would do just exactly the same thing as has been done by So-and-So and So-and-So. No; I am quite sure that I should not. If the time comes when I am one of a Government in this country, it will be a Government so entirely different from anything that has gone before that there will be no precedents on which to judge its conduct. But the right hon. and learned Gentleman ought to give us a complete statement of what actually took place.
Remember the position of some Members of the last Labour Government. Two sections came out of that Government, one of which told us one story and the other told us another story, and, whenever we began to get down to the essential facts that mattered—[An HON. MEMBER: "You found they were both liars."] No; we did not find out what happened at all. They drew themselves up with dignity whenever we got near to it, and said, "You must remember the oath of secrecy." That is exactly the position in which the House is to-day between these two sections. We do not know what took place at all. We do not know what was the alignment of forces. We do not know whether there were other groups in the Cabinet besides the three or four mutineers. From my little experience of politics, I know that in these situations there are usually three groups. There is the group which insists on having its way—the majority; there is the minority, who say, "We are going to have our way though the heavens fall"; and in between there are those who say, "We are with the minority, but we are not here to carry it to the stage of having the heavens fall, and, therefore, we will line up with the majority."
The Attorney-General ought to tell us. I understand that he is speaking for the Government, but my hon. Friend the Member for Gorbals tells me that the Attorney-General is not a member of the Cabinet. In that case I think that, unless he has been very fully briefed, on this issue the Government are not being fair to the House in sending down someone to present their case who has not been present at the incidents which have led up to the Debate that we are having to-day. Do I understand that the right hon. and learned Gentleman has been very fully briefed on the subject? An hon. Member behind me tells me that I can take that for granted. Then that means that the doctrine of Cabinet secrecy has been broken. I hope he will tell us all these things, so that we shall know. May I again congratulate the Lord President of the Council, as I congratulated him on the taking of private Members' time? He is the greatest confidence trickster in this country. I think that the greatest good fortune which has befallen the Government lies in the fact, although we all regret the reason for it, that they had the Lord President of the Council to carry them through this little difficulty instead of the Prime Minister. But he got away with it in the most wonderful fashion. He has only to come to the House of Commons and tell us a little ancient history. I do not believe he has even gone so far as the hon. Member for Ely (Mr. de Rothschild) who said he had read the preface to Dicey's History of the Constitution. I think both the President of the Council, the hon. Member for Ely and the President of the Board of Education are to be congratulated on having got through the Debate without quoting the piece about "broadening down from precedent to precedent."
The real point at issue is this: On the first day when this Parliament assembled, I ventured to doubt whether these men, sitting on this Front Bench, who had all in their separate party capacity had opportunities of Government responsibility before and had failed to deal with the national situation could, fitting together in one Government, produce a greater collective wisdom than they had been able to produce separately, and the essence of the criticism that the Oppo-
sition has against the Government is that, after these four or five months, during which crucial decisions had to be taken governing the future of the Government and this party, these men were unable to put their wisdom into the common pool, mind against mind, debate against debate, point against point, and out of that clash of minds and political ideas produce a national policy. That is where the great failure lies, that after their weeks of discussion and debate, after their weeks of self-abnegation and self-sacrifice, after their weeks of looking at problems from a non-party point of view, they came out, not with a national policy, but with their party policies still intact.
From the time when the obvious weaknesses in our industrial and economic system began to show in the post-War period, when this nation was confronted not with new problems but with problems in a different form from that in which they had been presented in pre-War days, from that time onward practically all the time we have had a series of open Coalitions or quasi Coalitions right down to now. One after the other they failed. Every year that went past, the problems of the nation became more obstinate. Every year that passed, the condition of the people became more pitiable until 1931 came and people said, "These statesmen have had the experience of 14 or 15 years. They have turned the problem this way and that way, and they have all had a shot at Government. We will give them again a chance of dealing with the problem nationally, so that they can produce a national policy which will make for the national good."
To me the position we stand in to-day is not one that we need worry about because some obsolete part of the old British Cabinet system has been broken. The thing for regret by this House and by the nation is that this combination, on which the nation reposed great hopes and from which the nation expected the highest things, has come before us and told the nation in plain, blunt language, "We are unable to subordinate our party differences and our economic interests to the general welfare of the nation." In the first speech I made in this House I said that it was easy to get unity when you were knocking shillings off the unemployed man. It was easy to get unity
when you were hitting the standard of living of the working class. Where your troubles would begin would be when you started to try to attack the vested interests of one powerful section or another. To-day we are facing the realisation of the fact that, while you are brave and gallant and united enough to hit the poor, each section of it is afraid to deal a blow against the big, powerful vested interests which one section or the other is specially here to protect.

Mr. MORGAN JONES: I should like to associate myself very heartily with the concluding sentences of my hon. Friend's speech. I entirely agree that Coalitions constitute a most unsatisfactory form of Government in this country and that the truth of that proposition has been abundantly proved since the end of the War in 1918. Further, I see no reason whatever to disagree with my hon. Friend when he said that in plain fact the fundamental reason for this present disagreement between the differing forces that constitute this coalition Government—I prefer that name to National Government —is that they cannot now agree and secure a co-ordinated policy in regard to an attack upon vested interests. We have had to-day a variety of speeches, all of which have been interesting in their way, some having a greater relevance to the subject under discussion than others, but still I think, all raising definitely the issue as to whether or not this House is justified in accepting or rejecting the Motion.
There are some three propositions in the Motion. We submit, first, that the Government have failed to secure unity, secondly, that in view of their failure to secure unity they have abandoned a well-established rule of Cabinets, namely, the principle of Cabinet responsibility, and that the real occasion for that is failure to agree upon a co-ordinated tariff policy. I wonder if I should be doing wrong if I asked this question at this point? Is, there any Member on any side of the House who is surprised at the present picture presented by the divergencies on the Front Government Bench? It is not necessary to go through the whole story in detail, but all Members will recall, and even Members who were not in the late Parliament wilt remember, that for three weeks prior to the last General Election
stupendous efforts were made by the three parties, or the two parties, and the quarter of a party, to arrive at a formula. They failed to obtain a formula except the sort of formula to have no formula, and in the teeth of the opposition of the Liberal section of the Cabinet a general election was forced upon the country.
In the course of that election some very curious things happened. The right hon. Gentleman the Member for Darwen (Sir H. Samuel) was opposed by a Conservative candidate, both saying that they stood for the National Government but both taking as much care as they could anyhow to see that the other fellow lost. The same thing befell the right hon. Gentleman the Member for St. Ives (Mr. Runciman) — [Interruption] — the right hon. Gentleman the Member for North Cornwall (Sir D. Maclean). I understand that there is a great distinction between North Cornwall and St. Ives nowadays politically. But in another part of the world we have a much more remarkable state of affairs. In the case of my hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Louth (Lieut.-Colonel Heneage), who is still with us, I am glad to observe, he was opposed by Mr. Ramsay Muir. A Member of the then Government, a Secretary of State, went down to support Mr. Ramsay Muir, and, if I remember rightly, another Member of the same Government went to support the hon. and gallant Gentleman opposite. Thus, there were two Members of the same Government speaking for Opposition candidates at the same election in the same division. How can you, in those circumstances, have anticipated anything approaching political unity?
The question has been asked several times before, and I will repeat it, for we have a right to ask the question, and I hope the Attorney-General will be good enough to answer it—Where does the Prime Minister stand in this matter? The Tories we know; some of the Liberals we know. We are entitled to know where the principal Minister under the Crown stands in respect of this particular proposition. I know that the probability is that he has not made up his mind. Possibly there is a commission sitting upon the matter with a view to discovering a conclusion on his behalf, but we are entitled, nevertheless, to know
whether the Minister who has direct access to the King has an opinion, and, if so, what is it. Does he belong to the majority or does he belong to the minority, or, which is the more likely, to neither? Therefore, it is clear that the first point which we make is obvious to everybody. There is no unity. That is not controverted by anybody, and I do not labour the point. The point which has occupied most of our attention is the second point, namely, the question of Cabinet responsibility and its further continuance, as we used to say, "for the duration of the War," or the duration of the present dispute. A good deal of unfair misrepresentation of our position has been made in the course of the Debate. There is no intention to submit to the House on behalf of this party that there should be a slavish adherence to precedent in this matter. Indeed, we can conceive actions arising for all Governments where it might be desirable for a less rigid adherence to precedent to be observed, and certainly if ever we should, as I hope we shall, and that soon, have a Labour and Socialist Government in this country, we should obviously feel that we must remember some of those constitutional precedents. That is our position, but it is not the position of hon. Gentlemen opposite.
10.0 p.m.
I remember the President of the Board of Education leading the Liberal group, the Wee Free group, as we used to call them, in this House from 1918 to 1922 with very great distinction, and he eternally brought the House back to the old proposition that in the very nature of things the Coalition which he was then opposing involved almost intrinsically some menace to the principle of Cabinet responsibility. Whatever that Coalition may have been, we have enough to guide us for the future in the action of the present Government. We have had Orders in Council, and we have the present departure from precedent which is very valuable. We thank them extremely for the guidance which they have thus given us, but we wish to emphasise the point that we may be entitled to embark upon those departures, but it does not lie in the mouths of the right hon. Gentleman the Minister of Education and his colleagues to defend this departure, for they, above all people, throughout their political life have been strictly meticulous in 
their regard for these legal niceties. Suppose the action which is now being adopted by this Government had been adopted in August last, year by the then Labour Government, and the Labour Government had agreed to present this House with the spectacle we now behold of a certain majority taking one line and a minority taking the other line, and each side being free to state its opinion freely and frankly to the House. I wonder what our friend Lord Beaverbrook would have said. I wonder what the Tory party would have said on this side when Parliament reassembled. In point of fact, it is a mere expedient to get over a difficulty, which, if it persists, must lead to the break up of this unholy Coalition.
I do not wish to take the line that there should be a complete break with solidarity in the Cabinet. I agree that if you have a Government or a Council of Ministers it can only be conducted successfully so long as each individual Minister is prepared to co-operate with his colleagues if his view is in accord with that of his colleagues. The moment his view is not in accord with that of his colleagues the honest thing, clearly, is for him to resign. Therefore, it seems to me that the case against the Government in their present action is overwhelming.
My hon. Friends below the Gangway, in their Amendment, seem to indicate that this departure, which they commend, involves in some measure greater publicity and less irresponsibility. I cannot see that. They will not know one whit more of what will be going on in the Cabinet in the future as a result of this departure than they have done before. There is no pledge whatsoever from the Lord President of the Council that there is to be full publicity of Cabinet proceedings in the future. There has been no such guarantee given. [Interruption.] The wish of my hon. Friend the Member for Bridgeton (Mr. Maxton) is father to the thought. So far as I can see, what we have been told to-night is that on this issue and this issue alone there is to be freedom, because without the grant of freedom this Government must come speedily to an end.
At what point is this disagreement in the Cabinet to stop? Did I understand aright from the President of the Board of Education that it is the intention of
himself and his colleagues in the future stages of the discussion of the Tariff Bill to speak against the Government and, if necessary, to put down Amendments against the Government? [Interruption.] Will the hon. Member who interrupts observe the ordinary courtesies of debate? I do not interrupt him. I know that he has not been long a Member of the House.

Mr. BRACKEN: Quite long enough, thank you.

Mr. JONES: Am I to understand that the President of the Board of Education and his colleagues insist not only upon the right to speak against the Government but that they are to be free to move Amendments to the Bill of a Government of which they are Members? If so, is that freedom to extend to junior Ministers? Are we to have, say, the Postmaster-General speaking on one side and the Minister of Mines on the other? Are we to have the Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Health speaking on one side and some Conservative Minister on the other? At what point is this freedom to stop? If Ministers are to be free, are ordinary Members of the party to be free? May we test that to-night? Will the Government take off their Whips and allow each Tory Member who strongly disagrees with this political expedient and experiment to be free, as the Ministers are free, to walk into the Lobby with us if they so please If they are not to be free, on what grounds are Cabinet Ministers entitled to demand freedom for themselves? This freedom once granted must be universal for hon. Members in all quarters of the House.
I do not pretend to be a student of constitutional history or constitutional law on a vast scale, but I am interested in the simple proposition that when a Bill is carried through this House and the other House it has to go in the ordinary way to receive the Royal Assent. Suppose the Cabinet at any particular point were almost evenly divided. On what ground of reason could we then expect His Majesty the King, or the Sovereign, whoever he might be, to give his Royal Assent to a Bill in regard to which there was the gravest possible reason for doubting whether there was adequate support for it inside the Cabinet or outside? That question ought to be answered, because if the exercise of
this freedom is to be unrestricted, sooner or later the relationship of the Crown to the Cabinet of the day will arise in controversy in this country.
Instead of Cabinet responsibility we have the new doctrine advanced of personal indispensability. I want to address myself more particularly to the dissentient minority in the Cabinet. I do not challenge for a moment the honesty of their purpose or the integrity of their intention, but I am interested in the case that was made by the President of the Board of Education. He said: "We have not been lacking in loyal co-operation. There has been Cabinet unity on a vast range of subjects." Both he and the Lord President of the Council suggested that we should test the validity of the present situation by judging the results. I assume that I am right in saying that probably Liberal Ministers feel that by remaining in the Cabinet they are in some way adding to national unity, as they call it, and they may be hoping that by remaining inside the Cabinet they are thereby reserving to themselves the opportunity for influencing legislation.
I invite the Liberal Ministers of the Cabinet to answer these propositions. Let me take foreign affairs—and the point is that in regard to these more general questions there is unity. Unity, yes, but at the expense of Liberalism and in the form of a victory for Toryism. Let us test it. Has the policy in Manchuria, I do not say anything about Shanghai, been a Liberal or a Tory policy? Was the somewhat ostentatious way in which the present Foreign Office insisted on presenting a separate note, disassociating itself from the American Note, indicative of the triumph of Liberalism or Toryism in our foreign policy? Would a distinguished radical leader of the last century, Mr. Gladstone, or a distinguished radical leader of this century, Sir Henry Campbell-Bannerman, been silent in view of the events recently in Manchuria? Why have Liberal Ministers been silent? It is because they have subordinated their Liberalism, even in foreign affairs.
Take disarmament. Are we to take it that it is because of the triumph of the Liberal party that Lord Cecil is not a member of the delegation at Geneva this week Is that indicative of the triumph of Liberalism or of Toryism?
Everyone who has read the evening papers can see that it is the triumphant vindication of Toryism in the present Cabinet at the Disarmament Conference this week at Geneva—[Interruption.] That statement seems to be controverted. If hon. Members will read the speeches of Lord Londonderry and Lord Hailsham before they went to Geneva they will find the spirit in which they intended to go. Was it a Liberal spirit or a Tory spirit? Liberal Members opposite, for the sake of the fiction of unity, the mere semblance of unity, remain in the Government although they are unable to influence its policy in any Liberal direction. When the President of the Board of Education was the leader of the Liberal party in 1922 he was extremely eloquent on the subject of the black and tans in Ireland, I was going to use a much stronger adjective. What is the policy of the Government now in India? They have black and tans there. Is it the policy of liberation or of force? Is it the policy of Liberalism or of Toryism that is now in operation there? The point I am making is this, that although they believe quite honestly that by staying in the Cabinet they may be able to influence policy, in practice you have Toryism triumphant all along the line.
Let me suppose that Liberal Members accept this policy wholeheartedly, would there be anything to prevent the right hon. Member for Darwen (Sir H. Samuel) from stating his policy as the leader of the Liberal party from this side of the House? He could still guarantee unity of the Government on international affairs, if he thought it was desirable to impress the world for a Tory Government to be assisted by an active opposition on a particular point for the time being. But instead of that we have the complete submergence of the Liberal party in everything that matters. The Home Secretary has emphasised over and over again that in international affairs it is essential that the Government should present a united front to foreign nations. Let us concede that point for a moment. If that be true, does it not follow that it is equally necessary for the Government to present a united front in relation to Dominion and Colonial affairs? But as I under-
stand it, the gravamen of the charge which many Tory Members advance against the Home Secretary is that in. prosecuting his line of opposition to tariffs he is, as a fact, alienating a substantial measure of Dominion and Colonial opinion.
Lastly, there is the question of the tariff. I think the right hon. Gentlemen opposite are entitled on the one hand to our sympathy, and that on the other hand they deserve our condemnation. They have invited the situation. At the end of last year they entered a Government in which they knew that inevitably they must be in a minority. They went into the Government with their eyes open. I confess that from that point of view there is an overwhelming case in favour of the Tories who say, "We have been returned to this House in overwhelming numbers. We represent the main body of strength behind the Government. We are entitled, therefore, to demand that the policy of our party shall be implemented by the Government of the day, which depends upon our majority alone." On the other hand Liberal Ministers quite honestly declared to their constituents and to the country at the general election that, come what may, they would not be able to accept a Protectionist policy. It really will not do. If the right hon. Member for Darwen and his friends—and especially the right hon. Member for Darwen—have been in the studio of the Government that has been creating this Frankenstein for weeks, they are not entitled at the premiere to slip into the orchestra stalls and attack their colleagues on the ground that the thing is not fit for presentation. The Home Secretary must accept the ordinary principle of democratic government. Either this tariff policy is good for the country or it is bad.
We cannot successfully run the nation on the principle which we saw so grotesquely exhibited last Thursday, and according to which one Minister declares that Protection will lead to the revival of industry, while another says it will lead to the ruin of industry; one says that Protection will give new life to industry and another that it will inevitably result in the death of industry. In face of those conditions how can we expect the people to increase their
respect for this ancient institution of which we are all proud to be members? Right hon. Gentlemen opposite are entitled, indeed it is their public duty, to propound the principles of Free Trade in this House, but they ought not to continue to do so as members of a Government which by a majority have declared in favour of the contrary policy. In such circumstances as these, by resignation they will not only regain that freedom which they desire, but they will add to the respect of the electors for the Government of this land.
I am bound to say that in my judgment only one reason underlies the course of action which is being taken. I hate to attribute motives but it seems to me, in this particular situation, that both parties have agreed even to the abrogation of ancient principles rather than reveal to the country the hollowness of the pretence which they made a few months ago. Right hon. Gentlemen opposite call themselves a National Government but I deny their claim to any such name. The Home Secretary on Sunday said that if the Liberal party left the Coalition the national character of the Government would be lost. What right has the Home Secretary to presume that the presence of the Liberal party in the Government gives it a national character, while the absence of the Labour party makes no difference at all? When, on the creation of this alleged national bloc, the Prime Minister failed to deliver to the Lord President of the Council more than some 10 followers, he proved conclusively that there was no such thing as national organisation or National Government. Indeed, the actions of this Government, the legislation of this Government, its attitude towards foreign affairs, the relationship of the country to foreign countries under this Government all prove that so far from having national cohesive unity in the form of a Government, we have just a curious agglomeration of fragments of parties without the trace of a claim to speak in the name of the people of this country.

The ATTORNEY-GENERAL (Sir Thomas Inskip): The Government have no reason to complain of the Debate which has been initiated by the right hon. Gentleman the Leader of the Opposition, if only because of the diversity of the
grounds which have been suggested, many of them inconsistent with each other, for censuring the Government. The hon. Member who has just spoken has indeed left me in considerable doubt as to what his particular complaint against the Government is. He asked a number of questions, some of which I am manifestly unable to answer. He invited me to express an opinion as to what Sir Henry Campbell-Bannerman would have thought of the policy with regard to Manchuria at the present time.

10.30 p.m.

Mr. MORGAN JONES: I asked the right hon. Gentleman's Liberal colleague to say so.

Sir D. MACLEAN: I am equally unable to answer.

The ATTORNEY-GENERAL: As the hon. Gentleman knew that I was to reply, and not my right hon. Friend the President of the Board of Education, perhaps he showed his customary discretion in asking a question which could not be answered. He went on to complain, if I understood him aright, that my right hon. Friends had subordinated what he called their Liberal opinions to Tory domination. Am I to understand that the hon. Gentleman complains, not of too little agreement among Members of the Government, but of too much agreement among them? The Vote of Censure was moved on the ground that the Government were not able to agree among themselves, and yet when, in the fields which the hon. Member mentioned, upon his own showing the Government are united in their opinions, he seemed to complain with equal fervour of the misdeeds of my right hon. Friends.
The Debate has had its entertaining side, and it has had its serious side. I think the House has fully appreciated the spectacle of the right hon. Gentleman the Leader of the Opposition, the sworn enemy of tradition, posing—I do not wish to use any offensive expression, so shall I say standing?—as the supporter of constitutional precedent. We hope the right hon. Gentleman will play that role on many future occasions. He will certainly not find that this Government will fall out with him if that is the part which he proposes to play. I gather on the whole that the complaint of the Opposition is that the Government have
embarked upon a novel experiment, but a very little reflection will show that the experiment is not so novel. The practice of so-called Cabinet unanimity is certainly no older than the fiscal system which we have been discussing in the last few days in this House. Some Parliamentary institutions have grown up with the nation, but this particular tradition of Government unanimity or Government solidarity, has certainly been the growth of no more than 100 years, as my right hon. Friend the Lord President of the Council pointed out.
The fact is, as everybody knows, that it is a custom that has only developed since Governments began to take their shape on hard and fast party lines. It was a practice formulated and adopted not so much in the national interest as in the party interest. Now, as we all know, the events of the last six months, or rather of the late summer of last year, were events which made everybody, every thinking person, appreciate that it was not a time when the best results could be obtained from the party system. The decision to form a National Government was, I think, applauded in every party in the State, and I believe that everybody realised that if we were to come through the troubles that then suddenly confronted us, there must be a drawing together of men of good will in all parties. I think a great many people in the Labour party regretted that there was such a manifestation of the most acid and bitter party spirit in the discussions that took place immediately following the formation of that Government.
But when that decision to form a National Government was taken, it is not surprising that the nation's necessities compelled us to consider whether the old constitutional precedents need be followed with the same rigidity and exactness as had been customary. Some comments have been made on the name which we still claim we have the right to use—that of a National Government. Member after Member opposite, beginning with the hon. Member for Fermanagh and Tyrone (Mr. Devlin), has said that we are not entitled to call ourselves a. National Government. All I can say is that if anybody acquainted with the great centres of population will make a little unprejudiced examination of the number of genuine labour working men who voted
across their party allegiance in support of this Government, he will realise that this, perhaps more than any other Government that this country has ever known, is entitled to that name.
The hon. Member for Fermanagh went on to refer to the great question of tariffs which has been occupying our minds. He said that he himself had never worshipped either at the shrine of Free Trade or the shrine of Protection. The hon. Gentleman calls himself an Independent, but why should he expect greater unanimity in a National Government than he is able to find even in his own, mind and conscience? If he has an open mind on this subject, and he has been considering it ever since Mr. Joseph Chamberlain first introduced it to the nation, is he very surprised when we have a National Government formed to deal with a national emergency that there should be men who quite honestly continue to hold opinions for which they have had a life-long attachment?

Mr. DEVLIN: I did not rise in the House to denounce myself.

The ATTORNEY-GENERAL: But there is a well known proverb which will appeal to the hon. Member, that those who live in glass-houses should not throw stones. The hon. Member for Bridgeton (Mr. Maxton) has imitated the hon. Member for Fermanagh. He, too, criticised the Government because they had not been able to reach a measure of unanimity on this tariff question. He disowned the intention of forming a Member of any Government. He hoped to live an honest and pure life without ever sitting on the Front Bench on either side of the House. Anybody who is living a detached life of flint sort can afford to criticise any Government. The real fact of the matter is that when a National Government was formed to deal with a national emergency, it was bound sooner or later to come up against some constitutional question or some rule of Parliamentary Government, and in all probability make a break with the past.
My right hon. and Noble Friend for Horsham (Earl Winterton) who made such an entertaining and delightful speech, which was also penetrating, said that this experiment will not work. We will wait and see, but I decline to recognise my
Noble Friend in the form of Cassandra. If we are lacking in good sense and wise instinct, the experiment will break down. My Noble Friend gave an illustration from the company life with which he is familiar. He said that if a board of directors were to differ as the present Government has differed, the shareholders would be shocked. All I can say is that the doctrine of indispensability of which he spoke is much more popular in company-directing circles than in Government circles. If my experience goes for anything, there are many occasions on which directors of companies dissent from the policy of their co-directors, and even ask that their dissent may be recorded on the minutes, but the occasions when a company director expresses his differences in public are very rare indeed. Those are the occasions when the shares of the company fall in value, and what my Noble Friend is really desiring is not that all the directors of a company, or all the Members of the Government, should agree, but that there should not be publicity. What he wants is not agreement, bat secrecy.

Earl WINTERTON: My right hon. friend and learned Friend must do me the justice to admit that that was not what I said. What I do not want to see is the shares of the company fall; and I tell him the shares of this company will fall unless they agree in public.

The ATTORNEY-GENERAL: I gather that my Noble Friend goes on to say that the shares of a company would not fall if only, being in disagreement, they would keep their disagreement to themselves. [Interruption.] My Noble Friend assents to that proposition. It is a matter on which we may have our own opinions. Speaking for the Government, as I do this evening, I say the Government have deliberately come to the decision that in the very special circumstances of this kind it is better that they should openly and honestly disagree upon this one topic than that there should be any pretence of agreement while all the time there is a festering sore of disagreement in the ranks of the Cabinet. The Noble Lord seemed, if he will allow me to say so, to be a little too much afraid of himself and some of his friends. It is no discredit to the speech of the Home Secretary the other day to say that some of us who do not agree with him are quite con-
fident that we have arguments with which we shall be strong enough to refute any criticism he may have to make upon the Government's financial policy. But the Noble Lord seemed to be so afraid of the Home Secretary's speech that he is against any opportunity being given to the Home Secretary to express his opinions. I believe that most of us on this side have more courage and more confidence in our opinions than has my Noble Friend behind me.
I must ask the House to notice—and the hon. Member for Caerphilly (Mr. Morgan Jones) will mark this—the restricted nature of the topic upon which the measure of disagreement has been allowed to be expressed. There is no intention of any substantial breach or any other breaches of what is, of course, a rule of common sense—that men who are going to act together shall be substantially agreed upon the policy which they have to carry through. Let us consider the nature of this question upon which there has been a measure of division. The tariff question has been with us for some 25 or 30 years. It is a question that has a peculiar flavour. It excites passionate feelings. It recalls "far off things and battles long ago." It is charged with emotion. It is a question upon which people do not readily surrender their convictions. Some of my right hon. Friends here have anchored their views to Free Trade, just as some of us have anchored ours to Protection.
Is it to be said that in this crisis of the nation's history it was quite impossible for anybody who had formed a definite opinion upon this great controversy to get together with others who disagree with him on that question and to unite with them in preparing measures which will bring the nation through its crisis? Of course it may be said that it is impossible, but we believe, contrary to what the hon. Gentleman has said, that it is not impossible. By adopting a method of which the country has approved with an amazing measure of unanimity—the proposal that there shall be disagreement and an opportunity of expressing it on the part of four or five Members of the Government—we can have an agreement upon the whole policy of the Government, except upon this one topic; and upon this topic effect is to be given to what
is the view of the majority of the Cabinet and also, I believe, of the party. Hon. Members opposite are the last people in the world to reproach the Government with differences of opinion upon this question. The hon. Member for Gorbals (Mr. Buchanan) pointed that out earlier in the evening, and I am sure that right hon. Gentlemen opposite and their friends do not need to be reminded of what Mr. Arthur Henderson said on this subject. The only difference between us and hon. Members opposite is that, if we are divided, then right hon. Gentlemen and their followers opposite are much more divided. The only difference between us and hon. Members opposite is that our opinion is honestly expressed whereas right hon. Gentlemen opposite keep up an appearance of unanimity on this question when they are separated from top to bottom.
The opinions which have been expressed in the Press and on public platforms as to the wisdom of the Government's decision to allow differences of opinion in the Cabinet show the common sense of the Government. The Noble Lord the Member for Horsham referred to the publicity agents of the Government. The Noble Lord seems to know more about publicity agents than I claim to know, but I express the opinion for what it is worth, that the opinions which have been expressed in the public Press are those which you will meet with in the railway trains, the street, the board rooms and the council chambers up and down the country. These people are expressing opinions which are not dictated by publicity agents, and they are almost the universal opinions expressed outside. They think that the Government took the wisest course in not pretending to agree when they did not agree, in giving effect to the policy of the majority, and giving liberty of conscience to those in the Cabinet who wish to assist in carrying through the great task for which the Government were elected.
The hon. Member for Bridgeton said, "Shame on you that you cannot put your differences and your prejudices into the common stock and form a united Government." I agree that that would have been an ideal policy; in fact it would have been Utopian in the circumstances which I have mentioned. But suppose
that you cannot sink your differences, is there anything dishonourable, provided they are sure that the opinion and the decision of the majority is going to have effect given to it? The Chancellor of the Exchequer made that perfectly clear the other evening. This is not a policy of compromise. The Government have carefully considered this question and, to their great honour, some right hon. Gentlemen have felt obliged to hold to their convictions. Let there be no mistake about it. The policy of the Government is not one which has been watered down to meet the views and convictions of some persons in the Cabinet, but it is the deliberate policy of the majority of the Government, and no one recognises that more than the Home Secretary who, with great force, presented the argument against that policy as he understood it. I think our frankness and the frankness of the Government is the best sign of the unity and the earnestness with which this and other questions will be faced. Bear in mind that the fiscal question is not the only question on the horizon. It may loom large at the present time, but as everybody knows there are other questions which require a strong and a unanimous Government. The great preponderance of opinion at the present time is in favour of the Government continuing as long as possible as the Government which it claims to be, the National Government representative of all parties.
I cannot help thinking that the whole animus that lies behind the Motion is

the passion which hon. Members opposite have for regulations, uniformity and unanimity, so much beloved by them, and compulsion—conviction by compulsion and trade by regulation—that they cannot believe the Government are actuated not by regulation and uniformity but by common sense. The fact is that to-day politics have reached a phase when we must take our courage and face the open seas. There are some hon. Members who would prefer to manoeuvre along the well-charted channels of ordinary party politics, and they are dismayed when they see a Government with courage and conviction attempting new policies and proposing a new course in circumstances of unexampled difficulty. We, at any rate, believe that in this National Government, to which we all have the honour to belong, we had the task imposed on us at the last General Election of making a non-party Government work in the interests of the nation as a whole and in carrying out that policy we believe we may yet show to the nation and the world that there is unsuspected power in our venerable but vigorous Constitution.

Question put,
That this House can have no confidence in a Government which confesses its inability to decide upon a united policy and proposes to violate the long-established constitutional principle of Cabinet responsibility by embarking upon tariff measures of far-reaching effect which several of His Majesty's Ministers declare will be disastrous to the trade and industry of the country.

The House divided: Ayes, 39; Noes, 438.

Division No. 49.]
AYES.
[10.53 p.m.


Adams, D. M. (Poplar, South)
Grundy, Thomas W.
Maclean, Neil (Glasgow, Govan)


Attlee, Clement Richard
Hall, F. (York, W. R., Normanton)
Owen, Major Goronwy


Batey, Joseph
Hicks, Ernest George
Parkinson, John Allen


Cocks, Frederick Seymour
Hirst, George Henry
Price, Gabriel


Cripps, Sir Stafford
Jenkins, Sir William
Salter, Dr. Alfred


Daggar, George
Jones, J. J. (West Ham, Silvertown)
Thorne, William James


Davies, Rhys John (Westhoughton)
Jones, Morgan (Caerphilly)
Tinker, John Joseph


Devlin, Joseph
Lansbury, Rt. Hon. George
Watts-Morgan, Lieut.-Col. David


George, Major G. Lloyd (Pembroke)
Lawson, John James
Williams, David (Swansea, East)


George, Megan A. Lloyd (Anglesea)
Leonard, William
Williams, Dr. John H. (Llanelly)


Graham, D. M. (Lanark, Hamilton)
Logan, David Gilbert
Williams, Thomas (York, Don Valley)


Grenfell, David Rees (Glamorgan)
Lunn, William



Griffiths, T. (Monmouth, Pontypool)
Macdonald, Gordon (Ince)
TELLERS FOR THE AYES.—


Groves, Thomas E.
McEntee, Valentine L.
Mr.Charles Edwards and Mr. John.


NOES.


Acland-Troyte, Lieut.-Colonel
Anstruther-Gray, W. J.
Atkinson, Cyril


Adams, Samuel Vyvyan T. (Leeds, W.)
Applin, Lieut.-Col. Reginald V. K.
Baldwin, Rt. Hon. Stanley


Agnew, Lieut.-Com. P. G.
Apsley, Lord
Balfour, Capt. Harold (I. of Thanet)


Albery, Irving James
Aske, Sir Robert William
Balniel, Lord


Alexander, Sir William
Astbury, Lieut.-Com. Frederick Wolfe
Barclay-Harvey, C. M.


Allen, Sir J. Sandeman (Liverp'l, W.)
Astor, Maj. Hn. John J. (Kent, Dover)
Beaumont, M. W. (Bucks., Aylesbury)


Allen, Lt.-Col. J. Sandeman (B'k'nh'd.)
Astor, Viscountess (Plymouth, Sutton)
Beaumont, Hon. R.E.B. (Portsm'th,C.)


Allen, William (Stoke-on-Trent)
Atholl, Duchess of
Benn, Sir Arthur Shirley


Bernays, Robert
Doran, Edward
Horsbrugh, Florence


Betterton, Rt. Hon. Sir Henry B.
Dower, Captain A. V. G.
Howitt, Dr. Alfred B.


Bevan, Stuart James (Holborn)
Dugdale, Captain Thomas Lionel
Hudson, Capt. A. U. M. (Hackney,N.)


Birchall, Major Sir John Dearman
Duggan, Hubert John
Hudson, Robert Spear (Southport)


Bird, Ernest Roy (Yorks., Skipton)
Duncan, James A. L. (Kensington, N.)
Hume, Sir George Hopwood


Bird, Sir Robert B. (Wolverh'pton W.)
Dunglass, Lord
Hunter, Dr. Joseph (Dumfries)


Blaker, Sir Reginald
Eales, John Frederick
Hunter, Capt. M. J. (Brigg)


Blindell, James
Eastwood, John Francis
Hurd, Percy A.


Boothby, Robert John Graham
Eden, Robert Anthony
Hurst, Sir Gerald B,


Borodale, Viscount
Edge, Sir William
Hutchison, W. D. (Essex, Romford)


Boulton, W. W.
Edmondson, Major A. J.
Inskip, Rt. Hon. Sir Thomas W. H.


Bowater, Col. Sir T. Vansittart
Elliot, Major Rt. Hon. Walter E.
Iveagh, Countess of


Bower, Lieut.-Com. Robert Tatton
Ellis, Robert Geoffrey
Jackson, Sir Henry (Wandsworth, C.)


Bowyer, Capt. Sir George E. W.
Elliston, Captain George Sampson
Jackson, J. C. (Heywood & Radcliffe)


Boyce, H. Leslie
Elmley, Viscount
James, Wing-Com. A. W. H.


Bracken, Brendan
Emmott, Charles E. G. C.
Jamieson, Douglas


Braithwaite, J. G. (Hillsborough)
Emrys-Evans, P. V.
Janner, Barnett


Briant, Frank
Entwistle, Cyril Fullard
Jesson, Major Thomas E.


Briscoe, Capt. Richard George
Erskline, Lord (Weston-super-Mare)
Joel, Dudley J. Barnato


Broadbent, Colonel John
Erskine-Bolst, Capt. C. C. (Blackpool)
Johnston, J. W. (Clackmannan)


Brocklebank, C. E. R.
Evans, Capt. Arthur (Cardiff, S.)
Johnstone, Harcourt (S. Shields)


Brown,Col. D. C. (N'th'l'd., Hexham)
Everard, W.Lindsay
Jones, Sir G. W. H. (Stoke New'gton)


Brown, Ernest (Leith)
Falle, Sir Bertram G.
Jones, Henry Haydn (Merioneth)


Brown, Brig.-Gen.H. C.(Berks., Newb'y)
Fermoy, Lord
Jones, Lewis (Swansea, West)


Buchan, John
Fielden, Edward Brocklehurst
Ker, J. Campbell


Buchan-Hepburn, P. G. T.
Foot, Dingle (Dundee)
Kerr, Hamilton W.


Bullock, Captain Malcolm
Foot, Isaac (Cornwall, Bodmin)
Kimball, Lawrence


Burghley, Lord
Ford, Sir Patrick J.
Kirkpatrick, William M.


Burgin, Dr. Edward Leslie
Fraser, Captain Ian
Knatchbull, Captain Hon. M. H. R.


Burnett, John George
Fremantle, Lieut.-Colonel Francis E.
Knebworth, Viscount


Burton, Colonel Henry Walter
Fuller, Captain A. E. G.
Knight, Holford


Cadogan, Hon. Edward
Galbraith, James Francis Wallace
Knox, Sir Alfred


Caine, G. R. Hall-
Ganzoni, Sir John
Lamb. -Sir Joseph Quinton


Campbell, Edward Taswell (Bromley)
Gault, Lieut.-Col. A. Hamilton
Lambert, Rt. Hon. George


Campbell, Rear-Adml. G. (Burnley)
Gibson, Charles Granville
Latham, Sir Herbert Paul


Campbell-Johnston, Malcolm
Gillett, Sir George Masterman
Law, Sir Alfred


Caporn, Arthur Cecil
Gilmour, Lt.-Col. Rt. Hon. Sir John
Law. Richard K. (Hull, S.W.)


Carver, Major William H.
Glossop, C. W. H.
Leckie, J. A.


Cassels, James Dale
Gluckstein, Louis Halle
Leech, Dr. J. W.


Castlereagh, Viscount
Glyn, Major Ralph G. C.
Lees-Jones, John


Castle Stewart, Earl
Goff, Sir Park
Leighton, Major B. E. P.


Cautley, Sir Henry S.
Goldie, Noel B.
Lennox-Boyd, A. T.


Cayzer, Sir Charles (Chester, City)
Goodman. Colonel Albert W.
Levy, Thomas


Cazalet, Thelma (Islington, E.)
Gower, Sir Robert
Liddall, Walter S.


Cecil, Rt. Hon. Lord Hugh
Graham, Fergus (Cumberland, N.)
Lindsay, Noel Ker


Chalmers, John Rutherford
Grattan-Doyle, Sir Nicholas
Lister. Rt. Hon. Sir Philip Cunliffe-


Chamberlain, Rt.Hon.Sir J.A.(Birm.,W)
Graves, Marjorie
Llewellin, Major John J.


Chamberlain, Rt. Hon. N. (Edgbaston)
Greene, William P. C.
Llewellyn-Jones, Frederick


Chapman, Sir Samuel (Edinburgh, S.)
Grenfell, E. C (City of London)
Lloyd, Geoffrey


Chorlton, Alan Ernest Leofric
Griffith, F. Kingsley (Middlesbro', W.)
Locker- Lampson, Rt. Hn. G. (Wd. G'n)


Chotzner, Alfred James
Grimston, R. V.
Locker-Lampson, Com.O. (H'ndsw'th)


Clarke, Frank
Gritten, W. G. Howard
Lockwood, John C. (Hackney, C.)


Clarry, Reginald George
Guinness, Thomas L. E. B.
Loder, Captain J. de Vere


Clayton, Dr. George C.
Gunston, Captain D. W.
Lovat- Fraser. James Alexander


Clydesdale, Marquess of
Guy, J. C. Morrison
Lumley, Captain Lawrence R.


Cobb, Sir Cyril
Hacking, Rt. Hon. Douglas H.
Lymington, Viscount


Collins, Sir Godfrey
Hales, Harold K.
Lyons, Abraham Montagu


Colman, N. C. D.
Hall, Lieut.-Col, Sir F. (Dulwich)
Mabane, William


Colville, Major David John
Hall, Capt. W. D'Arcy (Brecon)
MacAndrew, Maj, C. G. (Partick)


Conant, R. J. E.
Hamilton, Sir George (Ilford)
MacAndrew, Capt. J. O. (Ayr)


Cook, Thomas A.
Hamilton, Sir R. W.(Orkney & Zetl'nd)
McCorquodale, M. S.


Cooke, James D.
Hammersley, Samuel S.
MacDonald, Malcolm (Bassetlaw)


Copeland, Ida
Hanbury, Cecil
Macdonald, Sir Murdoch (Inverness)


Courthope, Colonel Sir George L.
Hanley, Dennis A.
McEwen, J. H. F.


Craddock, Sir Reginald Henry
Hannon, Patrick Joseph Henry
McKeag, William


Craven-Ellis, William
Harbord, Arthur
McKie, John Hamilton


Croft, Brigadier-General Sir H.
Harris, Sir Percy
Maclay, Hon. Joseph Paton


Crooke, J. Smedley
Hartland, George A.
McLean, Major Alan


Crookshank, Col. C. de Windt (Bootle)
Harvey, George (Lambeth, Kenningt'n)
Maclean, Rt. Hn. Sir D. (Corn'll N.)


Croom-Johnson, R. P.
Harvey, Major S. E. (Devon, Totnes)
McLean, Dr. W. H. (Tradeston)


Cross, R. H.
Haslam, Henry (Lindsay, H'ncastle)
Macmillan, Maurice Harold


Crossley, A. C.
Haslam, Sir John (Bolton)
Magnay, Thomas


Cruddas, Lieut.-Colonel Bernard
Headlam, Lieut.-Col. Cuthbert M.
Maitland, Adam


Curry, A. C.
Heneage, Lieut,Colonel Arthur P.
Makins, Brigadier-General Ernest


Davies, Edward C. (Montgomery)
Hillman, Dr. George B.
Mallalieu, Edward Lancelot


Davies, Maj. Geo. F.(Somerset,Yeovil)
Hills, Major Rt. Hon. John Waller
Mander, Geoffrey le M.


Davison, Sir William Henry
Hoare, Lt.-Col. Rt. Hon. Sir S. J. G
Manningham-Buller. Lt.-Co. Sir M.


Dawson, Sir Philip
Holdsworth, Herbert
Marjoribanks, Edward


Denman, Hon. R. D.
Hope, Capt. Arthur O. J. (Aston)
Marsden, Commander Arthur


Denville, Alfred
Hopkinson, Austin
Martin, Thomas B.




Mayhew. Lieut.-Colonel John


Despencer-Robertson, Major J. A. F.
Hore-Belisha, Leslie
Meller, Richard James


Dickle, John P.
Hornby, Frank
Merriman, Sir F. Boyd


Dixon, Rt. Hon. Herbert
Horne, Rt. Hon. Sir Robert S.
Millar, Sir James Duncan


Donner, P. W.
Horobin, Ian M.
Mills, Sir Frederick


Milne, Charles
Rentoul Sir Gervals S.
Stones, James


Milne, John Sydney Wardlaw-
Renwick, Major Gustav A.
Storey, Samuel


Mitchell, Harold P. (Br'tf'd & Chlsw'k)
Rhys, Hon. Charles Arthur U.
Stourton, Han. John J.


Mitchell, Sir W. Lane (Streatham)
Roberts, Aled (Wrexham)
Strauss, Edward A.


Mitcheson, G. G.
Roberts, Sir Samuel (Ecclesall)
Strickland, Captain W. F.


Monsell, Rt. Hon. Sir B. Eyres
Robinson, John Roland
Stuart, Hon. J. (Moray and Nairn)


Moore, Lt.-Col. Thomas C. R. (Ayr)
Rodd, Rt. Hon. Sir James Rennell
Sueter, Rear-Admiral Murray F.


Moreing, Adrian C.
Ropner, Colonel L.
Sugden, Sir Wilfrid Hart


Morris, John Patrick (Salford, N.)
Rosbotham, S. T.
Summersby, Charles H.


Morris, Owen Temple (Cardiff, E.)
Ross, Ronald D.
Sutcliffe, Harold


Morris, Rhys Hopkin (Cardigan)
Ross Taylor, Walter (Woodbridge)
Tate, Mavis Constance


Morris-Jones, Dr. J. H. (Denbigh)
Rothschild, James A. de
Templeton, William P.


Morrison, William Shephard
Ruggles-Brise, Colonel E. A.
Thomas, James P. L. (Hereford)


Moss, Captain H. J.
Runge, Norah Cecil
Thompson, Luke


Muirhead, Major A. J.
Russell, Albert (Kirkcaldy)
Thomson, sir Frederick Charles


Munro, Patrick
Russell, Alexander West (Tynemouth)
Thorp, Linton Theodore


Nathan, Major H. L,
Russell, Hamer Field (Sheffield, B'tside)
Titchfield, Major the Marquess of


Nation, Brigadier-General J. J. H.
Russell, Richard John (Eddisbury) Rutherford, Sir John Hugo
Todd, Capt. A. J. K. (B'wick-on-T.)


Newton, Sir Douglas George C.
Salmon, Major Isidore
Touche, Gordon Cosmo


Nicholson, Godfrey (Morpeth)
Salt, Edward W.
Tryon, Rt. Hon. George Clement


Nicholson, O. W.(Westminster)
Samuel, Sir Arthur Michael (F'nham)
Turton, Robert Hugh


Nicholson, Rt. Hn. W. G. (Petersf'ld)
Samuel, Rt. Hon. Sir H. (Darwen)
Vaughan-Morgan, Sir Kenyon


Normand, Wilfrid Guild
Sandeman, Sir A. N. Stewart
Wallace, Captain D. E. (Hornsey)


North, Captain Edward T.
Sassoon, Rt. Hon. Sir Philip A. G. D.
Wallace, John (Dunfermline)


Nunn, William
Savery, Samuel Servington
Ward, Lt.-Col. Sir A. L. (Hull)


O'Connor, Terence James
Scone, Lord
Ward, Irene Mary Bewick (Wallsend)


O'Donovan, Dr. William James
Selley, Harry R.
Ward, Sarah Adelaide (Cannock)


O'Neill, Rt. Hon. Sir Hugh
Shakespeare, Geoffrey H.
Warrender, Sir Victor A. G.


Ormsby-Gore, Rt. Hon. William G. A.
Shaw, Helen B. (Lanark, Bothwell)
Waterhouse, Captain Charles


Palmer, Francis Noel
Shaw, Captain William T. (Forfar)
Watt, Captain George Steven H.


Patrick, Colin M.
Shepperson, Sir Ernest W.
Wedderburn, Henry James Scrymgeour.


Pearson, William G.
Simmonds, Oliver Edwin
Wells, Sydney Richard


Peat, Charles U.
Sinclair, Maj. Rt. Hn. Sir A. (C'thness)
Weymouth, Viscount


Penny, Sir George
Skelton, Archibald Noel
White, Henry Graham


Petherick, M.
Smiles, Lieut.-Col. Sir Walter D.
Whiteside, Borras Noel H.


Peto, Geoffrey K.(W'verh'pt'n,Bilston)
Smith, Sir Jonah W. (Barrow-In-F.)
Williams, Charles (Devon, Torquay)


Pickering, Ernest H.
Smith, Louis W, (Sheffield, Hallam)
Wills, Wilfrid D.


Pike, Cecil F.
Smith, R. W. (Aberd'n A Kinc'dine,C.)
Wilson, Clyde T. (West Toxteth)


Potter, John
Smith-Carington, Neville W.
Wilson, G. H. A. (Cambridge U.)


Powell, Lieut.-Col. Evelyn G. H.
Smithers, Waldron
Windsor-Clive, Lieut.-Colonel George


Pownall, Sir Assheton
Somervell, Donald Bradley
Winterton, Rt. Hon. Earl


Procter, Major Henry Adam
Somerville, Annesley A. (Windsor)
Wise, Alfred R.


Pybus, Percy John
Somerville, D. G. (Willesden, East)
Withers, Sir John James


Raikes, Henry V. A. M.
Soper, Richard
Wolmer, Rt. Hon. Viscount


Ramsay, Capt. A. H. M. (Midlothian)
Sotheron-Estcourt, Captain T. E.
Womersley, Walter James


Ramsay, T. B. W. (Western Isles)
Southby, Commander Archibald R. J.
Wood, Rt. Hon. Sir H. Kingsley


Ramsbotham, Herwald
Spears, Brigadier-General Edward L.
Wood, Sir Murdoch McKenzie (Banff)


Ramsden, E.
Spencer, Captain Richard A.
Worthington, Dr. John V.


Rankin, Robert
Spender-Clay, Rt. Hon. Herbert H.
Wragg, Herbert


Ratcliffe, Arthur
Stanley, Lord (Lancaster, Fylde)
Young, Rt. Hon. Sir Hilton (S'v'noaks)


Reed, Arthur C. (Exeter)
Stanley, Hon. O. F. G. (Westmorland)
Young, Ernest J. (Middlesbrough, E.)


Reid, James S. C. (Stirling)
Steel-Maitland, Rt. Hon. Sir Arthur



Reid, William Allan (Derby)
Stevenson, James
TELLERS FOR THE NOES.—


Remer, John R.
Stewart, William J.
Captain Margesson and Mr. Russell Rea.


Resolution agreed to.

Orders of the Day — MERCHANT SHIPPING (SAFETY AND LOAD LINE CONVENTIONS) [EXPENSES].

Resolution reported.
That, for the purposes of any Act of the present Session providing (among other matters) for giving effect to an International Convention for the Safety of Life at Sea, signed in London on the 31st day of May, nineteen hundred and twenty-nine, it is expedient to authorize the payment out of moneys provided by Parliament of any sums required for the contribution from the United Kingdom towards maintaining, in accordance with articles thirty-six and thirty-seven of the said Convention, a ser-
vice in the North Atlantic for the destruction and removal of derelicts, for the study and observation of ice conditions, and for ice patrol.

The remaining Orders were read, and postponed.

ADJOURNMENT

Resolved, "That this House do now adjourn."—[Captain Margesson.]

Adjourned accordingly at Ten Minutes after Eleven o'Clock.